***************************************************************** 10/04/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.260 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 [toeslist] The "Poor Man's Atom Bomb" 2 Nuke pill supplies are on the way 3 Nuclear experts seek improved security 4 Shut Sellafield or face court, says Minister 5 Inquiry call over company guarding UK nuclear plants 6 N-plants to escape green energy tax 7 Small nukes biggest threat to mankind: Chomsky 8 Territorial army may defend UK nuclear plants 9 Government may ditch nuclear energy option 10 Real Risks? 11 Healing Our World Commentary: Why Are We So Afraid - of Fear? 12 Editorial: Regulators looked at for sharing info 13 Spent Nuclear Fuel Pools Seen Vulnerable to Attack 14 Beazley vows to stop Jabiluka - Ballot '01 15 Poll: Plutonium, water top residents' concerns 16 Shaheen blasted over Seabrook security 17 Labor denies Lucas Heights decision a bid for Green preferences 18 Howard attacks ALP policy of scrapping Lucas Heights reactor 19 FPL public access no longer routine 20 Belgian ministry says tighter security at nuclear plants "not yet 21 State confident with Millstone emergency plan 22 Labour wants to build 15 new nuclear power plants 23 Taking a new view of Calvert Cliffs 24 Reactors and Their Fuel Are Among the Flanks U.S. Needs to Shore Up 25 Dump site battle rages below the surface 26 What would happen if an attack on Millstone forced a sudden 27 Evacuation site? What evacuation site? Region's citizens react 28 National Guard sent to nuclear plants NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Oak Ridge guard pact running out at a difficult time 2 DOE, contractors 'clean up' Web sites 3 Las Vegas SUN: Pakistan Releases 2 Nuke Scientists 4 Official: No Collision With Kursk 5 US Wants to Advise Pakistan on Nukes 6 The U.S. should seize the chance to buy Russia's enormous 7 U.S. Worries About Pakistan Nuclear Arms 8 HOW KURSK DIED ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 [toeslist] The "Poor Man's Atom Bomb" Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 11:10:53 -0600 (CST) BIOWARFARE - POOR MAN'S ATOM BOMB Little known or forgotten is the sucessful biowarfare attack in 1984 in Oregon where several hundred people became sick to keep them from voting. Those terrorists spread Salmonella bacteria on a salad bar and the people who ate the salad became sick and they spread the disease. (Do an e-mail search in PNEWS-L for more about this incident) A problem with biowarfare is the delay between the time the attack takes place and the time it takes (incubation) for the outbreak. It may at first manifest vague symptoms and by the time it is realized that there has been a biowarfare attack, it may, by then, already affect large numbers of people and some of the stages of infestation may be highly advanced beyond the time of onset. The U.S. experimented with bacteria in the 50s and 60s to determine disbursement and the time it took to spread this bacteria. The CIA carried out this experiment unbeknownst to the public. This was CIA sponsored terrorism. Biowarfare was frequently used during WWI even though all the major powers signed the 1907 Hague Convention outlawing the use of chemical projectiles in combat, that is except for the United States, which refused to sign the treaty. During WWI the war there were a million casualties from biowarfare and 10% of them were fatal. In ancient times they also used biowarfare. They would dip their arrows in manure or in rotting corpses to make these projectiles more deadly. The Tartars in the 14th century catapulted dead bodies over city walls, which had the plague and a theory now advanced by many historians is that this was the cause of the plague spreading to all of Europe. Jews were often blamed for the plague while they had nothing to do with it except they were less affected since Jews observed strict laws of cleanliness and appeared therefore immune. This led to suspicion and of course to accusations against the Jews for poisoning the wells. After WWI Winston Churchill orderd the use of gas warfare against the Iraqis and he stated: "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral affect should be good..and it would spread a lively terror.. We cannnot in any circumstances acquiesce in the non-use of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder that prevails." ["Air Ppower and Colonial Control: The Royal Air Force 1919-1939 - and quotes of Winston Churchil - 1990] Biowar is nothing new. However, in 1925 the Geneva Protocol prohibited the use in war of "asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases and of all analogous liquids, materials, and devices" including all "bacteriological" methods. All countries ratified the treaty by the 50s. It took a long time for all of them but it took a lot longer for the United States. Only two did ratified and sign this protocol by the 50s. They were Japan and you guessed it, the United States. Finally in 1970 the Japanese did ratify and not until 1974 did the U.S. sign - but this has not prevented it's use. "There's always been a concern about biochemical weapons.... The concern now is deeper because the country is dealing with terrorists. The terrorists are not concerned with public opinion and want to kill as many people as possible.." [Political science professor, Stephen Sloan, University of Oklahoma] In 1995, a "doomsday" cult, calling itself "Aum Supreme Truth" released sarin gas in a crowded subway as it neared a station and beneath government offices. 12 died and 6,000 became ill. What is the difference if a government uses it or a cult or an organization? How is it all right for one and not for the other? How is it not terrorism when a government, like England uses it on Iraqis but it is terrorism when it is used by anti-U.S. or anti-government organizations use it in the U.S.? There has been a proliferation in the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. Labs in Russia and 50,000 Russian scientists have worked on the BioWarfare Weapons project. And we also have tens of thousands of capsules full of biowarfare agents stored in the United States. Why would we have it if we would never use it? "At its height, 70,000 people worked on the Soviet germ warfare programme, including 9,000 scientists and engineers who turned anthrax, the plague and smallpox into weapons of mass destruction, U.S.-based experts say." [Reuters - Jon Boyle] Some have called bio weapons the "poor man's atom bomb", implying that it is just another form of horrendous warfare. How much less horrendous would it be to explode a nuclear weapon in Afghanistan? According to Jane's Intelligence Review there are now 17 nation states which have biological weapons and many organizations, like Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda, which has an interest in developing BT (bio-terrorism) weapons. All this leads in only one direction. [1] Use it first and [2] the tightening up of security and an erosion of civil-liberties. Some, including some right wing congressmen, are suggesting that we use weapons of mass destruction now. Some people are saying also that they're willing to sacrifice civil-liberties for their security, but when it really comes down to giving up free speech and the right to object who really becomes the victims and the real casualties of a war on rights? We all do. But first it will be the disidents. The victims of restraint and totalitarianism will always be those who are independent of mind and seek some redress for economic disparity. If we are to assume the threat of biowar is from outside (though it increasingly appears the current Anthrax attacks may be from some right wing organizations within) we need a sensible foreign policy and respect for other cultures. It was only a matter of time before they got fed up with our Christian missionaries and our exploitation of their resources and pushing our culture on them. It is easy to sit in judgment when people are different than we are. We have often done that. It is the foundation and basis of our racist U.S. foreign policy. "Racism was one of the key founding principles of the United States. The Puritans exterminated Pequot Indians, hopeing, in the Puritans' words, to `cut off the Remembrance of them from the earth.' To George Washington, Indians and wolves were both `beasts of prey, tho' they differ in shape.' In the Declaration of Independence, one of the indictments against King George was that he had inflicted ont he colonists `the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an indistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions' -- a rather accurate characterization of the rules of warfare employed against the Native Americans. Repeatedly, in the Indian wars that raged acress the continent, U.S. soldiers would proclaim as they massacred infants, `Kill the nits, and you'll have no lice.' `We must act with vindictive earnestness againt the Sioux,' wrote General Sherman in 1866, `even to their extermination, men women and children.' To Theodore Roosevelt, the `most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages, though it is apt to be also the most terrible and inhuman.' but no matter, because it was `idle to apply to savages the rules of international morality which obtan between stable and cultured communities...' Not that Roosevelt went `so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.'" ["Imperial Alibis, Rationalizing U.S. Intervention After the Cold War, by Stephen Rossskamm Shalom - South End Press] And, how we again demonize the enemy. We all everything that is the Taliban and Osama bin Laden "evil" and because they are considered less than human and talked about that way, most feel very little remorse over killing them. TheGolem http://pnews.org/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://pnews.org/art/5art/BULLY.shtml (U.S. Bully and Apologists) http://pnews.org/art/5art/MUSICALchairs.shtml (U.S. Foreign Policy) http://pnews.org/art/5art/ourFLAG.shtml (Understanding Patriotism & FLAG) http://pnews.org/art/1art/AFFORDbasics.shtml (Struggle for the Basics) http://pnews.org/art/5art/REACTparenti.shtml (Terrorism Meets Reactionism) http://pnews.org/art/5art/warHORROR.shtml (RACIST WAR Against Arabs) http://pnews.org/art/5art/nationSTATE.shtml (Solution to Terrorism) ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ARCHIVES ---> http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/pnews-l.html If you are a subscriber to PNEWS-L you can send LISTSERVER mail commands to search the archived database. You can also set TOPICS to those you wish to receive and turn off the others (there are 23 separate Topics or mini-lists in PNEWS-L) You can also reduce your mail with options to receive an INDEX or a DIGEST of articles and other mail. PNEWS-L is the oldest progressive news and views forum on the internet - since 1982 FREE university LISTSERV(tm) - the only forum you will ever need Subscribe: Send request to: pnews-l-request@maelstrom.stjohns.edu ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Clever Cam is a pen sized digital camera, webcam, and mini-camcorder. Just $79.95 at Youcansave.com. http://us.click.yahoo.com/F11sED/NkNDAA/ySSFAA/NJYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: toeslist-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 2 Nuke pill supplies are on the way The Union Leader & New Hampshire Sunday News - November 4, 2001 By ROGER TALBOT Sunday News Staff Since they started marketing Iosat almost 20 years ago, Bruce W. Rodin and his partner, Alan Morris, have hoped their customers will never have to peel their product’s shiny foil wrap and swallow the tiny pill inside. They were motivated by what happened at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pa., in 1979, when loss of coolant led to a partial meltdown of the reactor core, and by the explosion and fires at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine in 1986 that released radioactive waste the winds carried across much of Europe. Nuke pill supplies are on the way The Union Leader & New Hampshire Sunday News - November 4, 2001 By ROGER TALBOT Sunday News Staff Since they started marketing Iosat almost 20 years ago, Bruce W. Rodin and his partner, Alan Morris, have hoped their customers will never have to peel their product’s shiny foil wrap and swallow the tiny pill inside. They were motivated by what happened at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pa., in 1979, when loss of coolant led to a partial meltdown of the reactor core, and by the explosion and fires at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine in 1986 that released radioactive waste the winds carried across much of Europe. While making their living in other business pursuits, the two men kept alive their Florida-based Anbex Corp., which has only one product: Iosat, a 130-milligram potassium iodide tablet. A few other companies make potassium iodide tablets and sell them in bottles, but Anbex wrapped each of its pills in foil to extend the shelf life. Rodin noted he has tested Iosat made 15 years ago and found the pills retain their potency. “Alan has always thought that the chance of a nuclear plant accident is not miniscule so we’ve kept going. We’ve been serious about the idea of making this stuff available to those who want it,” Rodin said in a telephone interview from his home in New Jersey. The problem has been in getting those in authority to take them seriously. “We’re not talking about a huge amount of money here,” Rodin said of the pill. He ships a two-week supply mail-order for $14. “The government could buy it in bulk for less money than they spend on hammers,” he said. At one point, he proposed Iosat be stockpiled in every post office for quick distribution during an emergency. “There is a post office near everybody,” Rodin said. Another suggestion would have had the utilities jointly buy into a large quantity of Iosat and stockpile the pills at a central distribution hub, like Memphis, Tenn., the home base for Federal Express. If an emergency developed at one of the nation’s 103 nuclear power plants, a plane load of the tablets could be quickly shipped to that location. “We still got resistance from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” Rodin said of official aversion to acknowledging the possibility of a catastrophic nuclear power plant accident. “They said people don’t need this and, even if we put it on planes, how would we get it from the airport to the people who need it?” Potassium iodide, better known by its chemical symbol, KI, protects the thyroid from the radioactive iodine that could be released in a nuclear reactor disaster. The drug, when taken shortly before or in the hours immediately after exposure, saturates the thyroid with iodine, preventing cancer-causing radioactive iodine from settling in the sensitive gland. KI protects against radioactive iodine — not the myriad of other poisonous and radioactive substances that could spew from a damaged nuclear reactor. Authorities have emphasized evacuation offers the only real protection. While the contamination from other deadly substances would be concentrated in communities adjacent to a damaged nuclear reactor, the winds could carry radioactive iodine for days before it settles out and affects people living hundreds of miles from the disaster site. Over the years, Anbex has sold its foil-wrapped KI pills to government agencies and some of the utilities that operate nuclear power plants in about a dozen states, including Vermont, Pennsylvania, New York and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The agencies and utilities buy KI for emergency and plant employees who would be required to work in the danger zone after an accident. They usually stockpile modest amounts, about 1,000, 14-pill packets, Rodin said. KI is a non-prescription drug and Anbex sells its pill to anyone who orders by telephone — (727) 329-1115, Ext. 1572 — on the company’s Internet Web site (www.anbex.com) and through survivalist-oriented Internet distributors. Last year, the town of Duxbury, Mass., appropriated $5,000 to buy enough Iosat to distribute to 22,000 people, if an accident happened at the nearby Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. The biggest spike in mail-order sales came in late 1999 when fear spread over the possibility the millennium New Year would trigger widespread disruptive computer failures. Last May, Rodin was handing out samples of Iosat at a nuclear industry trade show in Tennessee when he bumped into folks from New Hampshire who work for the state Office of Emergency Management. The New Hampshire officials told him of their efforts to get pharmacies to stock and promote KI to their customers. “I told them that was a wonderful idea. I asked them to send me a list of all the pharmacies in the state so we can send them free samples and they can decide if they want to buy our product,” Rodin said. The New Hampshire Sunday News reported last week that pharmacists have not followed through on the state’s request because they have been unable to find a ready source of KI and cannot buy the drug through their wholesale distributors. Rodin said he did not receive the list of New Hampshire pharmacies from the state until last week. “We’re in the process of sending out samples to all these pharmacies,” starting with the stores in communities near the Seabrook Station and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants, he said. Rodin said he was contacted last week by representatives of the CVS drug store chain reacting to interest shown by their pharmacists in New Hampshire. And a pharmacist at the Shop ‘N Save in Hampton has ordered Iosat. “He ordered 100 packs and sold out. Within 10 days, he had ordered another 200 and, before we filled that order, he faxed me an order for 500 more,” Rodin said. He is also trying to develop an information kit to distribute to pharmacies who may be hesitant to stock KI. They would hand out the kit to customers interested in buying directly from Anbex. If this approach catches on, Rodin said he would find a way to compensate the pharmacies that help connect his company with new customers. “It’s a different world now,” Rodin said. “Who could have contemplated using a commercial airline as a bomb,” he said, alluding to the attacks of Sept. 11 that have raised concerns about the possibility of sabotage at nuclear power plants. “We’ve kept this company alive because we thought that at some point it would be important to have KI available,” Rodin said. “This has been on our minds and in our hearts for years and I hope we can rise to the occasion and satisfy the needs of people who now want our product.” ***************************************************************** 3 Nuclear experts seek improved security The Taipei Times Online: 2001-11-04Sunday, November 4th, 2001 POSSIBLE TARGET: The International Atomic Energy Agency is calling for increased security at nuclear facilities to ensure terrorists are prevented from inflicting disaster AP AND REUTERS, VIENNA, AUSTRIA Nuclear experts pleaded with the world's richer countries to spend millions of dollars more on security for radioactive materials, warning that only stringent controls will stop terrorists and avert a nuclear catastrophe. Appealing for international unity in creating universal and stringent controls on nuclear materials, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said that poor countries need help to fund security programs aimed at preventing nuclear material from falling into the hands of terrorists. "This is in everyone's interest," he said of the need to donate US$30 million to US$50 million annually to beef up security at nuclear facilities where theft or sabotage is most likely to occur. Given what is at stake, he said the amount is "peanuts." Hundreds of experts gathered in Vienna on Friday to explore steps nations can take to secure radiological material -- moves made more urgent by the attacks of Sept. 11. He said it is unclear whether terrorist groups have the capability of building a nuclear bomb, but warned that governments must act quickly to prevent that from happening. "We don't have any information that al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization has nuclear material," he said. Before the attacks on New York and Washington, the agency was worried most about the risk of governments "diverting nuclear materials into clandestine weapons programs," ElBaradei said. Now, however, experts are concerned about using radioactive materials to make a weapon unlike traditional nuclear devices meant to be used by governments at war. Experts particularly worry that terrorists could construct a "dirty bomb." Unlike more sophisticated nuclear weapons, a "dirty bomb" is a crude device using radioactive material taken from industrial sites or hospitals and detonated by conventional explosives. When a so-called dirty bomb explodes, radioactive material is dispersed. Such a crude weapon may not kill many people, but would spark a panic, ElBaradei said. The agency hopes to use the money to beef up security at sites where safeguards are at their weakest, though they declined to be specific about which sites or countries were at issue, citing safety concerns. After determining which of the world's facilities are most vulnerable, the agency then plans to increase security at the least-protected sites -- for instance by implementing high-tech security systems in plants which are now only manned by armed guards. ElBaradei said the agency also planned to work more closely with Interpol to prevent the trafficking of stolen radioactive materials, adding that this is an area "where you need international cooperation." "In some states where radioactive materials are not well regulated, they are potentially available," said Graham Andrew, scientific adviser at the International Atomic Energy Agency. "The potential for panic is quite large," Andrew said. "Radioactivity is invisible, you can't see it or feel it. And you don't know what its impact on your health in 10 years will be." Dr. Jerrold Post, a terrorism expert from George Washington University in the US, said that an attack on a nuclear facility by religious fundamentalists was certainly conceivable in the light of the events of Sept. 11. Post said he had interviewed several dozen suspected fundamentalist attackers about their views and told the conference that the results were "startling and chilling." Post said, when asked if there were any limits to the numbers of casualties they wanted to inflict, one suspect had said: "The more casualties, the better. The greater the number of casualties, the greater the measure of success." Post quoted another: "This is not murder, this is jihad [holy war], and in a jihad, there are no red lines." Shortly after the events of Sept. 11, nuclear experts began exploring the consequences of hijackers ramming a jumbo jet into one of the world's 438 nuclear-power reactors. The IAEA cannot yet predict whether the result would be a Chernobyl-style disaster or not. "They haven't actually done that evaluation yet," Andrew said. He referred to a 1988 US experiment in which scientists rammed a small military jet into a concrete and steel structure identical to a nuclear power plant. The structure held. "It wasn't just a publicity stunt," Andrew said. "What it actually showed was that the engineering assessment predicted it accurately. There was a dent of about two-and-a-half inches and the computer simulations predicted that." This story has been viewed 79 times. URL=[http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2001/11/04/story/0000110026] Copyright © 1999-2001 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 4 Shut Sellafield or face court, says Minister Irish Newspapers - Date: Sun November 4th 01 IRELAND will seek an injunction against Britain to immediately stop the MOX plant at Sellafield if the UK does not voluntarily suspend authorisation for the plant by Friday, November 9, a Government Minister said yesterday. As part of the legal action to stop the operation of the MOX plant, Ireland has requested the setting up of an international tribunal under the UN Convention of the Sea. But the arbitration tribunal will take some time to set up and if the UK does not suspend authorisation for the plant by next Friday, Ireland will ask the international tribunal for the Law of the Sea to order an immediate suspension, pending a decision by the arbitration tribunal, said Minister of State Joe Jacob. Speaking in Drogheda at a public forum on Sellafield, he said that the Hamburg-based tribunal has the jurisdiction to order a binding injunction, adding that the Government was "totally dismayed and angered" at the UK decision to give the MOX plant the go-ahead. He also pledged that the Irish Government would use every diplomatic and legal means to stop it. The meeting also heard demands from speakers that Sellafield be shut down immediately, that a no fly zone be imposed and a missile defence system installed. These demands followed a hard-hitting speech by Dr Tom O'Flaherty, chief executive of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII), highlighting major deficiencies in the UK complex. However, the overall safety record of Sellafield, which dates back to 1956, was defended by John Clarke, head of safety for British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Dr O'Flaherty, who is a Government advisor, focused on two plants in the Sellafield complex which could release radioactivity if either was targeted by terrorists, or suffered a serious accident. These plants are the High Activity Storage Tanks (HAST) and the Calder Hall reactors, which are operating for 45 years and have 1950-style safety standards. Both plants gave "grounds for concern" said Dr O'Flaherty. In fact, they were the biggest potential hazards in the Cumbrian nuclear complex potentially more dangerous than the new MOX plant, which is due to go into operation later this month. In relation to the storage tanks, Dr O'Flaherty said they "contain very large quantities of radioactive substances". He told the audience he feared a large release of these substances into the atmosphere due to failure of the tank cooling systems, leading to boiling, or else a rupture caused by an external impact. KEVIN MOORE ***************************************************************** 5 Inquiry call over company guarding UK nuclear plants Guardian Unlimited | Archive Search War on Terrorism: Observer special [http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism] Antony Barnett and Conal Walsh Observer Sunday November 4, 2001 The Sudanese businessman whose factory was bombed by the Americans after they claimed it was making chemical weapons for Osama bin Laden owns a major stake in the company providing security at Britain's main nuclear power stations. With authorities warning that nuclear sites could be the next target of a terrorist attack, the disclosure prompted the Conservative Party to demand an immediate government statement to reassure the public. The Observer can reveal that Salah Idris, whose pharmaceuticals factory was destroyed by US cruise missiles in 1998, has multi-million pound investments in two British security firms through a secretive offshore company. These firms act as security consultants and supply security systems at 11 nuclear stations throughout the UK, including Sellafield and Dounreay. They also have security contracts with some of Britain's top potential terrorist targets, including Canary Wharf, the House of Commons and Army bases. The companies would have highly sensitive details of all the facilities where they install equipment. At the time of the attack on Idris's El Shifa factory in Sudan, Tony Blair gave his full support to the US, claiming Washington had 'absolutely compelling evidence' that the plant was part of a bin Laden move to 'develop a capacity' to make chemical weapons. Idris has always strenuously denied the allegations, and is suing the US government for £35 million compensation. Despite growing support for his case in the US and Britain, Washington refuses to retract any of its claims and is contesting the lawsuit. Oliver Letwin, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: 'In the current climate, people will be rightly concerned about The Observer's allegations, which raise very serious questions. They require an urgent response. Either the Government has cleared Mr Idris of any wrongdoing, or they should launch an immediate investigation.' Security is being reviewed at civil nuclear installations amid concerns that they could be terrorist targets after a warning by the United Nations nuclear safety watchdog that nuclear terrorism was now 'far more likely'. Idris holds a 20 per cent stake in the security firm Protec via his offshore company, Global Security Systems. Protec is a security consultancy and provides hi-tech closed circuit television systems, infra-red detectors and alarms. Its chief executive Bill Moir said Idris played no active role: 'We've never met him. He just happens to be a major investor in a company which is a shareholder in us. He has nothing to do with the com pany from an operating point of view at all.' Last month, The Observer revealed that Idris owns 75 per cent of IES Digital, a company which makes and installs security equipment. It supplies the British Army, the Foreign Office and the Houses of Parliament. David Hitchins, IES Digital's marketing manager, said: 'We provide security for some of the most sensitive sites in the UK, right up to government Ministers and the Army. All our engineers are vetted thoroughly.' Hitchins claims the Government has complete confidence in Idris. He said the businessman's involvement in IES was solely as an investor, and he had no day-to-day involvement. 'I see him once a year,' he said. Idris said in a statement: 'I am not, nor have I ever been, a terrorist or associated with terrorists. In particular, I have never met nor spoken with Mr Osama bin Laden, nor with any agent of his. Nor have I ever knowingly done business with him or any of his agents.' US officials once accused Idris of having financial dealings with Islamic Jihad, the Egypt-based terrorist group now in league with bin Laden. Idris's assets in the US - frozen after the CIA allegations - were released in May 1999, a move which he claims as proof that America had no evidence linking him to any terrorist organisation. Yet US officials claim their 'real concerns' about him were based on 'sensitive information'. Idris's lawyers deny he has had financial dealings with Islamic Jihad. No one from the US or UK governments was available for comment. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 6 N-plants to escape green energy tax Guardian Unlimited Observer | Business | Oliver Morgan, industrial editor Sunday November 4, 2001 The Observer [http://www.observer.co.uk] In a move which will accelerate controversial plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations, the Government is set to exempt the atomic industry from a 'green' energy tax. The exemption - to be recommended by the Government's energy review chaired by Trade and Industry Minister Brian Wilson - will make nuclear power more competitive than coal and gas. This will be seen as a strong signal that Ministers believe there is a future for new nuclear generation in the UK. The nuclear generators British Energy and British Nuclear Fuels have argued that nuclear - which, unlike fossil fuels, does not emit carbon dioxide - represents the only realistic way of delivering future cuts in greenhouse gases and avoiding over-reliance on imported gas. Both have argued they should be exempted from the the Climate Change Levy - a tax on the consumption of energy by industry - which does not distinguish between carbon polluters and nuclear power. It appears the Government has accepted this. The decision will infuriate environmental campaigners, who believe nuclear should not be given the advantage already given to renewable energy, such as wind and solar power,which is already exempt from the tax. The energy review, by the Cabinet Office's performance and innovation unit, will produce a draft report by 15 November. It will address the issue of building fresh nuclear power stations, and stress the possibilities of the renewable sources. The study will make clear that if there are to be new reactors, they must be built in numbers to take advantage of economies of scale. British Energy's submission to the review proposes 10 new plants to replace old Magnox reactors as they come off stream. With BNFL, it argues that measures such as exemption from the levy are crucial if new plants are to be built. The review is likely to look at options involving building between five and 10 stations. A Whitehall source said: 'It will recommend nuclear gets climate change levy exemption. It will be part of a package on nuclear [that] would underpin the economics of [new stations].' Pete Roche, of Greenpeace, said: 'This is disastrous. Any move to create more dangerous nuclear waste, that we have no idea what to do with, will be widely opposed.' Special report Britain's nuclear industry Interactive guide Nuclear reprocessing Useful links British Nuclear Fuels Ltd [http://www.bnfl.co.uk/website.nsf/default.htm] Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament [http://www.cnduk.org/] HSE nuclear glossary [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ilrwglos.htm] UK atomic energy authority [http://www.ukaea.org.uk/] National Radiological Protection Board [http://www.nrpb.org.uk/] World Nuclear Association [http://www.uilondon.org/] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 7 Small nukes biggest threat to mankind: Chomsky rediff.com: November 3, 2001 India Abroad Weekly Newspaper Rezaul H Laskar in New Delhi Noted intellectual Noam Chomsky on Saturday said weapons of mass destruction, especially small nuclear devices, posed the greatest threat to countries all over the world. One of America's most prominent political dissidents, Chomsky said small nuclear weapons, particularly those weighing less than 15 pounds, could be smuggled into almost any country with relative ease. Even in a highly advanced country like the US, studies had shown that the possibility of such a nuclear weapon being smuggled in had a greater chance of succeeding than a military strike using ballistic missiles, he said while delivering the D T Lakdawala memorial lecture. Chomsky emphasised the danger posed by thousands of nuclear devices currently believed to be in former Soviet republics and scores of nuclear scientists left "with no work" following the break-up of the Soviet Union. He attributed the rapid proliferation of nuclear weapons to the failure of the US to agree to some sort of protocol on controlling the spread of weapons of mass destruction as far back as the 1950s. Speaking on the theme 'Peering into the abyss of the future', Chomsky lashed out at the US intervention in developing parts of the world, the role of the corporate world in supporting power systems and the ongoing arms races. Lacing his remarks with dry wit and his trademark irreverent attitude towards the establishment, Chomsky said democracy and human rights were in danger of becoming "endangered species" due to the policies of global powers that received the support of the elite and powerful. Referring to the ongoing US strikes against Afghanistan, he said it had even become "unpatriotic" to question the working of power. "But it is patriotic to agree to corporate tax cuts," he quipped. Chomsky accused the US administration of "quietly endorsing" China's efforts to resume nuclear testing so that it could press ahead with its ballistic missile defence. "It's convention for an attack to be called defence," he said. Describing New Delhi's support for the US's National Missile Defence programme as "astonishing", Chomsky said the move could have far-reaching consequences for India and other countries in its neighbourhood. The US, he said, was alone in the race for militarisation of outer space. The development of space-based weaponry would only serve to increase American influence all over the world. All space-based defensive assets would be heavily dependent on satellite communications. Given the vulnerability of satellites, however, the US would have to seek "full spectrum dominance" and this could lead to the development of laser and nuclear weapons that could bring instant death to any part of the world, Chomsky said. On the brighter side, he pointed to a "sharp acceleration" in the human rights culture and democratic control over certain sectors achieved through popular struggle as phenomena that could bring greater change. "These developments are important if the momentum can be sustained," he said. Indo-Asian News Service ***************************************************************** 8 Territorial army may defend UK nuclear plants Ananova - Some of Britain's 40,000 part-time soldiers could be deployed to defend nuclear plants and other key targets from terrorist attack. The Territorial Army could be used like the US National Guard to provide armed patrols at installations considered at risk of attack, the Independent on Sunday reported. The Ministry of Defence confirmed that a wider role for the TA is one of the options being considered as part of the review of the Armed Forces ordered by Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon in the light of the September 11 attacks. In his speech to the Labour Party conference last month, he said that Britain's military capabilities may need to be "rebalanced" to take account of the new threat of so-called "asymmetric" warfare. He told the Independent on Sunday: "I certainly think there may emerge from this review a greater role for a military presence within the UK. "I would not want to use regular forces for that purpose. I can see the TA may be involved in that. "I recognise as a result of September 11 we are in a very different situation and we have to take appropriate measures." The threat of terrorist attack against nuclear installations was underlined by a warning last week from the International Atomic Energy Agency calling for tighter security worldwide. It also warned of the need to ensure that terrorists did not get hold of radioactive materials used in hospitals and laboratories. Story filed: 00:37 Sunday 4th November 2001 Copyright © 2001 Ananova Ltd ***************************************************************** 9 Government may ditch nuclear energy option Sunday Herald By Rob Edwards The government's review of energy policy, which has been widely trailered as backing new nuclear power stations, might end up rejecting them. Despite being chaired by the pro-nuclear Energy Minister, Brian Wilson, a majority of the advisory group set up by the Cabinet Office favour replacing Britain's nuclear electricity with power from renewable energy sources like wind and waves. If this is agreed by the government, it would sound the death knell for the nuclear industry. The energy review has been repeatedly reported as backing the building of new nuclear power stations when existing plants like those at Hunterston in Ayrshire and Torness in East Lothian come to the end of their lives over the next few decades. But, in reality, the review is only now beginning to reach its conclusions. The Sunday Herald has learnt that the group could end up recommending against any new nuclear stations simply because they are too expensive. The only way that nuclear power can be economically viable is if the taxpayer is burdened with the huge costs of radioactive waste disposal and decommissioning. 'The group is edging towards conclusions but there is still everything to play for,' said one insider. A decision to ditch the nuclear option would be a disappointment for Wilson, who has made clear that he wants a new nuclear station to be built at Hunterston in his constituency, as well as the nuclear generating companies. Two initial reports, carried out by the Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) at the request of the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, betray the group's thinking. One puts the cost of nuclear electricity much higher than winning power from the wind or from growing energy crops . The other points out that increased energy efficiency and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) are better options. New generating capacity, says the Cabinet Office unit, 'can best be delivered, consistent with all energy policy objectives, using energy efficiency, CHP and renewable energy, provided that the last of these can be built at acceptable cost.' ©2001 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088. all rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 Real Risks? [GainesvilleSun.com Your North Central Florida online news and information Monday, November 5, 2001 By WILLIAM J. BROAD, STEPHEN ENGELBERG and JAMES GLANZ The New York Times Since being jolted by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 and the persistent, mysterious spread of anthrax, the government has been struggling to discern what, if any, weapon might be aimed at the nation next. Government analysts have been forced into broad agreement that the threat of terrorists wielding mass-casualty weapons - chemical, biological or even nuclear - is more serious than they had previously believed. At the same time, they say a widespread attack with any of these sophisticated weapons would be difficult to achieve. But there is little precision behind these judgments, and officials acknowledge that the next attack by al-Qaeda or some other group could well involve conventional weapons - truck or car bombs. The assessment of threats, the attempt by government analysts to forecast the behavior of unseen, even unknown enemies, is at best an imprecise art that depends largely on the quality of the intelligence from which it is drawn. Many agencies do it, and they often disagree. ''Can we assess threats? Yes, we can, and we've done so in the past. We've figured out things that people might try to do to us and closed them off,'' said Ken Pollock, deputy director of national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former official at the CIA. ''But ultimately, when you have a very creative group of people like al-Qaeda, they are capable of surprising us.'' ''We may come up with a thousand scenarios of what they can do to us,'' Pollock said. ''But the only one that matters is the one that the al-Qaeda person comes up with.'' Nonetheless, a host of officials, from the CIA to the FBI to the Pentagon, are trying to deliver the analysis that would help both fend off attacks in the near future and defend against longer-term threats. There are almost limitless possibilities. The Japanese Aum Shinrikyo cult attempted several attacks with germ weapons, including anthrax, before turning to the nerve gas sarin, which they released in the Tokyo subways in 1995, killing 12 people. Experts say that chemical weapons offer terrorist groups a chance to inflict huge casualties and spread panic, much as the release of a small amount of anthrax has stirred panic among an already-jittery public. John Bolton, the State Department's top arms control official, said Wednesday at a breakfast meeting with reporters that he was significantly more concerned about the possibility of nuclear, chemical or biological attack since Sept. 11. A group that would ram airplanes into the World Trade Center, he said, is ''not going to be deterred by anything.'' ''Had these people had ballistic missile technology, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that they would have used it,'' Bolton said. Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda group is believed to have what one senior Pentagon official recently termed a ''crude chemical and possibly biological capability.'' The group also attempted to obtain nuclear materials in the mid-1990s. That effort was not successful, but officials viewed it as a clear indication of bin Laden's intentions. The quest to imagine the unimaginable can have side effects. Richard K. Betts, a Columbia University professor who served on the National Commission on Terrorism, noted that the practitioners of threat assessment could produce a haze of lurking dangers. ''Which of the three dozen 'out of the box ideas' do you decide to make the focus?'' he asked. The terrorism commission, which produced its report in June 2000, reviewed the government's pre-Sept. 11 assessments of the terrorist threat. Betts and others on the commission said they found much that could be improved with some low-cost steps. ''You can keep better track of who is ordering questionable biological agents,'' he said. ''You can keep track of what foreigners are in this country working in sensitive industries.'' Biological agents All germ weapons are not created equal. Some are like sticks of dynamite - deadly if exploded in a crowd but otherwise limited in destructive power. Some can spread like fire through a dry forest. Most are hard to make, use and control, which limits their appeal to terrorists. The United States and the Soviet Union, in their forsaken programs to make germ weapons, focused their bulk production of deadly biological agents on 10 kinds of bacteria, viruses and toxins. Now, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists 36 different classes of ''select agents'' - potential weapons whose transfer among scientific and medical researchers is regulated to keep them out of unfriendly hands. There are 13 viruses, seven bacteria, three rickettsae (microorganisms that have traits common to both bacteria and viruses), one fungus, and 12 biological toxins. Of these, experts agree, the smallpox virus is in a class by itself. Ancient and vicious, the virus killed more people over the ages than any other infectious disease, up to a half billion in the 20th century alone. It is highly contagious and can spread rapidly. In one of the great triumphs in public health, smallpox was eliminated from the world in 1980, and today, stocks of the virus are known to exist only in the United States and Russia. But experts suspect its presence in clandestine stockpiles. Because vaccination for smallpox has been abandoned and immunity is not lifelong, most people today are believed to be vulnerable to the disease. ''It's my personal nightmare,'' said Dr. Al Zelicoff, a physician and smallpox specialist at the Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, N.M. Despite a history going back ages, and despite occasional grim successes, germ weapons have never played decisive roles in warfare or terrorism. One reason is that it is difficult to acquire and use the complicated gear needed to make and scatter deadly pathogens. Another is the risk of a boomerang effect in which the attacker becomes the victim. With the recent anthrax outbreaks, experts have had to recalculate their assessment of the threat of widespread biological terrorism. Many still feel that such an attack is difficult to mount. ''There is an ocean of difference between learning how to steer a jetliner into a building and overcoming the technical hurdles in the dispersal of a biological agent to cause mass casualties,'' said Dr. Amy E. Smithson, an expert on biological and chemical weapons at the Henry L. Stimson Center, a private group in Washington. The congressional investigators of the General Accounting Office, in a September 1999 report, looked at a dozen biological agents and found that their use by terrorists was mostly possible or potential - not likely. For instance, it said bleeding disease agents like Marburg were unlikely ''due to difficulty in acquiring pathogen, safety considerations and relative instability.'' With smallpox, the investigators found that its use was questionable ''due to limited access to the pathogen,'' even while agreeing that an outbreak would have devastating effects. Many experts argue that no state possessing the virus would give it to a terrorist because of the danger of starting a global epidemic that would kill indiscriminately, especially in the developing world.''Societies that harbor terrorists might be at greater risk than we are,'' said a top federal adviser on biological terrorism, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Brad Roberts, a terrorism expert at the Institute for Defense Analyses, a private group in Alexandria, Va., that advises the Pentagon, said that doing careful threat assessments was almost impossible because of the lack of concrete information about terrorist capabilities, and that in that vacuum appraisals have often tended to be alarmist. Chemical threats Chemical weapons are typically less likely than germ weapons to cause widespread death and illness, but experts say they are easier to make and deploy. For that reason, the experts regard them as worrisome. Still, as with germ weapons, obtaining the requisite raw materials can be difficult, as is pulling off successful attacks. Fickle winds can easily blow toxic mists off target. Because of the many potential snags, some experts see terrorist strikes on chemical plants and transportation links as easier methods for releasing noxious clouds that could injure or kill many people. Dr. Smithson of the Stimson Center recently told a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs that roughly 850,000 American facilities, many in or near major cities, use hazardous or extremely hazardous chemical poisons. ''My main chemical terrorism concern relates to the possible sabotage of these industrial facilities,'' she said, adding that new safeguards and precautions were attempting to deal with that danger. Officials of chemical companies and related operations, and rail and trucking companies that ship to them, say they have increased their security efforts since Sept. 11. But some potential ingredients for chemical weapons are available on the commercial market, avoiding the need to make them. Chlorine, phosgene, and hydrogen cyanide are examples, all noxious if inhaled but limited in killing power. Small doses tend to produce no effects or nausea. Medium doses produce dizziness. Large doses can end in convulsions and death. Far more deadly are nerve agents, small amounts of which can penetrate the skin or lungs to disrupt the body's nervous system and stop breathing. They are also technically more difficult for terrorists to acquire or make, the General Accounting Office pointed out in its 1999 study. Nuclear threats Nuclear terrorism may represent the darkest fear of all, simply because of the degree of destruction and huge number of casualties that are theoretically possible. After Sept. 11, experts began taking a fresh look at studies that largely ruled out the possibility that terrorists could obtain a nuclear device, said David Albright, an expert on nuclear proliferation, who is president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, a nonprofit organization that works against the spread of nuclear weaponry. ''You'd always reach the point where you say, yes, a terrorist could theoretically do it,'' Albright said. ''And you'd look at the terrorists and say 'Nah, they're not capable or they don't want to.' That's what's changed. Al-Qaeda could do it, and they want to.'' The post-Sept. 11 geopolitics seem to have increased the possibility of nuclear terrorism. And advances in nuclear weapon design have made bombs simpler to build. But even so, any terrorist group attempting a nuclear attack would face major barriers. Given the complexities involved in building a nuclear device, a terrorist would probably prefer to buy or steal a complete nuclear weapon. If that is not possible, then obtaining a relatively pure form of the fissionable material at the heart of a nuclear weapon is a more complicated possibility that would require building the rest of the weapon. Obtaining lower-grade material and refining it would be still more complicated. Experts no longer believe that getting a complete weapon is impossible. Pakistan has tested nuclear weapons, probably Hiroshima-size bombs fueled by enriched uranium, and the country's military and intelligence services are salted with sympathizers of the Taliban. Pakistan recently arrested three of its senior nuclear scientists because of concerns over possible connections with the Taliban. Another possibility would be to obtain the grapefruitlike core of uranium from, say, the Pakistanis, which would be easier to smuggle out of the country than an entire bomb. It is no longer out of the question that al-Qaeda could somehow build the rest of the bomb, Albright said. He said if the terrorists could not get the core of an actual bomb, they might consider obtaining spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors in any number of countries. Concentrating the fissionable uranium from those rods would be a monumental task, but separating plutonium, which can also fuel a nuclear weapon, is just within the realm of possibility, Albright said. Over the years, countries have come up with simpler designs for nuclear weapons, making it much more likely that a shoestring operation inside Afghanistan could build one, Albright said. In the late 1970s, for example, South Africa stunned the rest of the world when it exploded a uranium weapon with a greatly simplified triggering mechanism. Except for the suitcase bomb, any one of those weapons would probably have to be brought to the United States in a ship, perhaps hidden in a container on a freighter. The bombs could fit into a large van and, if exploded in downtown Manhattan, might cause tens of thousands to a hundred thousand deaths, Albright said. A cruder but simpler way to use radioactive materials as a weapon would be to construct a radiological bomb, sometimes called a dirty bomb. The idea is to kill and terrorize with radiation alone, by packing radioactive material around an ordinary explosive and detonating it above a city. Radioactive cesium, a byproduct of the American weapons program and commonly used in radiation therapy for cancer, would be one possibility, experts say, as would plutonium. The radioactive material could spread as a dust emanating from the explosion, falling on a wide area of a city. These dirty bombs are much easier to engineer than nuclear bombs. But because of the known sympathies of many Pakistanis for al-Qaeda, one threat easily stands out, said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Takoma Park, Md. ''There's so many vulnerabilities,'' Makhijani said, but ''the most immediate danger relates to Pakistani nuclear weapons.'' ***************************************************************** 11 Healing Our World Commentary: Why Are We So Afraid - of Fear? Environment News Service: By Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D. Why Are We So Afraid - of Fear? "Fear is your friend ... It is a basic instinct of human survival - physical, psychological, spiritual. We need to have an acute sense of what threatens our well-being. . . But fear's danger signals get muffled when we develop a pattern of denying and suppressing our fears. By not paying attention to specific fear signals, that energy gets diffused into a generalized paranoia, a perennial low-grade alarm fever that pervades our lives." -- Gabrielle Roth, "Maps To Ecstasy," Nataraj Publishing In America these days, the Bush administration has declared that it is patriotic to shop and to travel in the face of terrorist threats. We are told that if we change our behaviors, the terrorists win. We are told to go on with our lives, be vigilant, and to act pretty much as if nothing has happened. It is almost as if being afraid were the same as being un-American. Pretending not to fear danger, though, is a trap that results in an even greater state of alarm that will pervade every aspect of our lives. Hijacked planes flown into buildings, disease causing bacteria in the mail, regular warnings of terrorist attacks, and millions of deaths each year from toxic substances seem like good reasons to be afraid. Fear is a very health emotion. Every animal on the planet - including humans - use fear as a way to stay out of danger. Animals and humans without the ability to experience fear rarely survive very long. Gabrielle Roth, author of "Maps to Ecstasy," says, "Fear is a vitally useful emotion. It places you on alert, catalyzes your senses, and heightens your awareness in the face of danger. Fear is your friend, the radar for your voyage through life. It is a basic instinct of human survival - physical, psychological, spiritual. We need to have an acute sense of what threatens our well-being." Without acknowledging our fears, we then become afraid of everything. Roth says, "And in my work, I find that virtually everyone is locked in fear; people are afraid of everything - losing their job, losing their lover, losing their life; they're afraid of success, afraid of being too happy, afraid of the truth, afraid of feeling, afraid of moving, of changing." [mall] California shopping mall (Photo courtesy Santa Clara University School of Engineering) How many of us have experienced the tightening of the throat, neck, and lower back that accompanies an unreleased fear? Unreleased fear stiffens the jaw, contracts the forehead and locks the knees. Yet we live in a culture that demands that we not be afraid. Roth says, "Fear writes its signature all over the body, but we are all so used to it we've become desensitized to the loud-and-clear message of our body language. And this pervasive fear simply compounds itself; it paralyzes our life energy, seizes up our feelings. We're so afraid of what we are going to lose, so painfully attached to what we have, that we numb ourselves into a living death to shield us from the pain of real living. By clinging to life as we have it, we deny ourselves a vibrant present and future." But Americans aren't afraid of anything, right? We tell our children thousands of times as they are growing up "don't be afraid," when in reality, they have every right to be afraid at times. Rather than teach them to manage and take advantage of their fears, we teach them to be afraid of fear. When the immobilizing energy of unexpressed fear is released, fear can be transformed into what Roth calls its "natural dynamic partner," excitement. When we give appropriate attention and expression to our fears as they arise, then the pent up energy and the paralysis can be released. Roth says, "Fear properly channeled yields wide-awake engagement." Psychologists have known this for years. And business leaders and politicians know this as well. And the last thing that business and political leaders want is a wide-awake and engaged population. What if everyone was wide-awake and engaged? If this happened, the face of the world would change overnight. If we were wide-awake and engaged, it would be impossible to tolerate the destruction of our ecosystems and life-support systems of our precious Earth. [boy] Boy endures this summer's food shortage in Tajikistan. (Photo courtesy International Federatioin of Red Cross and Red Crescent [http://www.ifrc.org] ) If we were wide-awake and engaged, it would be impossible to tolerate the fact that four million children under the age of five die each year from diseases resulting just from unsanitary drinking water. That number increases dramatically if you include those poisoned by industrial wastes contaminating water worldwide. If we were wide-awake and engaged, it would be impossible to tolerate the World Health Organization's (WHO) estimate that more than 200,000 people are killed by pesticide poisons, worldwide every year. That means 547 men, women and children die every day from pesticide poisoning. If we were wide-awake and engaged, it would be impossible to tolerate the fact that most of the nation's 103 nuclear power plants, all of whose licensees come up for renewal in the next few years, could not be legally built today because of construction flaws and environmental impacts. If we were wide-awake and engaged, it would be impossible to tolerate the fact that at least two million people are routinely exposed at their workplaces and homes to cancer-causing dust from chemically treated wood worldwide while sanding furniture or constructing cabinets. If we were wide-awake and engaged, it would be impossible to tolerate the fact that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) estimates that more than 32 million workers are exposed to harmful substances from more than 3.5 million workplaces every year. [cows] A downed cow is left to suffer and die at an Oklahoma stockyard as her frightened young calf looks on. (Photo courtesy Farm Sanctuary [http://www.factoryfarming.com] ) If we were wide-awake and engaged, it would be impossible to tolerate the fact that millions of people get sick each year and 7,000 to 10,000 people in the U.S. alone die annually from eating contaminated meat from the nation's filthy slaughterhouses. If we were wide-awake and engaged, it would be impossible to tolerate the fact that nearly 7.6 million animals are trapped in cruel steel jaw traps and more than 30 million animals are raised on farms in terrible conditions worldwide, all to supply fur coats to the rich. If we were wide-awake and engaged, it would be impossible to tolerate the fact that the U.S. has 8,400 nuclear warheads in its current operational stockpile. Russia has a similar number. If we were wide-awake and engaged, it would be impossible to tolerate the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on advertising every day, encouraging our children to smoke, drink, and fill their bodies with mind numbing sweets that create learning disabilities for thousands of children in our nation's schools. But if we were wide-awake and engaged, it would be impossible to shop, now, wouldn't it? We would see the connections between rampant consumerism and environmental and social degradation. We would see that allowing businesses to dump any chemicals down the drain or in the trash would be folly. We would see that the killing of even one innocent woman, man or child in war makes no sense. By telling us to suppress our natural fears, we are kept in a constant state of low-level panic and discomfort. We are then presented with advertising images that assure us that we will feel better if we shop. Author Franz Kafka told us, "You can hold yourself back from the suffering of the world: this is something you are free to do ... but perhaps precisely this holding back is the only suffering you might be able to avoid." Acknowledge and express your fears. They won't consume you. It is totally reasonable to want to stay closer to home, spend more time with your families, and to buy only what you need. Wanting peace is not unpatriotic and being afraid of terror is perfectly natural. To me, the terrorists win if we pretend not to fear and deny our humanity, logic, and compassion. Once you acknowledge your fears, take advantage of the wide-awake engagement that can follow. You may find that the people to be afraid of don't always hide in caves. RESOURCES 1. Participate in this year's "Buy Nothing Day," sponsored by The Media Foundation. They propose that we all buy nothing on the biggest shopping day of the year, the day after Thanksgiving. Learn more from their website at: http://www.adbusters.org/ [http://www.adbusters.org/] 2. Learn about the fascinating work of philosopher, healer, and teacher Gabrielle Roth at: http://www.ravenrecording.com/classes.html [http://www.ravenrecording.com/classes.html] . Read an interview with her at: http://www.newdimensions.org/article/roth.html [http://www.newdimensions.org/article/roth.html] 3. See details of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile at the website of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists at: http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nukenotes/ja98nukenote.html [http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nukenotes/ja98nukenote.html] 4. The Peacemakers Speak website has Nobel Peace Prize winners' views on the current crisis at: http://www.thecommunity.com/crisis/ [http://www.thecommunity.com/crisis/] 5. Get help overcoming consumerism at: http://www.verdant.net/ [http://www.verdant.net/] 6. Learn about the global impacts of consumer based societies at: http://www.oneworld.net/guides/consumerism/front.shtml [http://www.oneworld.net/guides/consumerism/front.shtml] 7. See a collection of readings about consumerism at: http://www.popcultures.com/articles/consumer.htm [http://www.popcultures.com/articles/consumer.htm] 8. Read about how our kids get so caught up in consumerism in an article by Brian Swimme, Ph.D. at: http://www.newdream.org/youth/swimme.html [http://www.newdream.org/youth/swimme.html] 9. Learn about the effects of media on our families from the National Institute on Media and the Family at: http://www.mediaandthefamily.org/ [http://www.mediaandthefamily.org/] 10. Understand more about the corporate takeover of education through subsidized curricula from Corporate Watch's "Commercialization in the Classroom" web site at: http://www.igc.org/trac/feature/education/commercial/index.html [http://www.igc.org/trac/feature/education/commercial/index.html] 11. Find out who your Congressional representatives are and e-mail them. Tell them that you want them to stop telling us to pretend that all is well and go shopping. If you know your Zip code, you can find them at: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ziptoit.html [http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ziptoit.html] {Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D. is a writer and teacher in Seattle. He can be found staying as close to home as he can. Please send your thoughts, comments, and visions to him at jackie@healingourworld.com [jackie@healingourworld.com] and visit his website at: http://www.healingourworld.com [http://www.healingourworld.com] } ENS ***************************************************************** 12 Editorial: Regulators looked at for sharing info Las Vegas SUN November 02, 2001 The inspector general at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is investigating whether someone at the commission leaked a confidential memo about the Yucca Mountain Project to Department of Energy employees, contractors and lawyers. The NRC is an independent federal agency that is supposed to impartially review applications for nuclear power plants and nuclear waste storage sites. Sometime in 2002 the DOE is expected to submit its application to the NRC to bury 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain. If someone at the NRC shared with outsiders the commission's internal guidelines for reviewing the likely application, then it would give the Yucca Mountain Project an unfair advantage in preparing its application. The NRC already has a chummy relationship with the nuclear power industry, and often acts more as if it is the industry's champion rather than its regulator. So while it would be a breach of public trust, it also wouldn't be too surprising to learn that the NRC would share confidential information with the DOE. The DOE, after all, also has been known to do the bidding of the nuclear power industry, which desperately wants to see a nuclear waste dump built at Yucca Mountain. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said last week that if the leak occurred it not only would violate NRC and DOE rules, but that it also could be a violation of some federal laws. For Nevadans, the suspected sharing of information is just one more reminder of how the deck has been stacked against the residents of this state. Federal agencies that are supposed to protect us from potential danger instead have let us down and rolled over for the influential nuclear power industry. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 13 Spent Nuclear Fuel Pools Seen Vulnerable to Attack Science - Reuters - updated 9:20 PM ET Nov 4 By Vibeke Laroi SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - While the United States steps up security at its nuclear power plants, energy experts warn the plants' fuel dumps are far more vulnerable than reactors to attack by anyone trying to spread radioactivity. ``Spent fuel has never gotten the same attention as the reactor ... as a result you don't have the same level of security and safety as exists for the reactor,'' David Lochbaum, a former nuclear plant engineer now with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Reuters. ``Because it's a softer target and has greater consequences, terrorists may elect to go after the spent fuel,'' he said. Security has been tightened at the 103 nuclear power plants in the United States, the source of 20 percent of the country's electricity, since the Sept. 11 hijacked plane attacks that killed about 4,800 people in New York and the Pentagon ( [http://rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news? p=%22Pentagon%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw] - [http://rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Pentagon &h=c] ). Amid U.S. calls for increased vigilance at strategic sites worldwide, the head of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency warned on Thursday that an act of nuclear terrorism was ``far more likely'' than previously thought. Since Sept. 11, much of discussion in the nuclear industry has focused on whether an aircraft could penetrate the steel and concrete containment building surrounding a plant's reactor. But nuclear experts are warning that guarding on-site storage facilities for these same reactors' highly radioactive spent fuel is also a critical issue that must be addressed. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees the U.S. nuclear industry, needs to devote more attention to this issue, agency spokesman Victor Dricks said. DE FACTO WASTE DUMPS When most of the energy is wrung from the radioactive pellets used to run the power plants, the spent fuel is tightly sealed in water-filled, on-site pools. Water is needed to cool the fuel, which gives off heat and radiation for many years after it is removed from the reactor. Over the years, the pile of spent fuel from U.S. reactors has grown to more than 40,000 metric tons, enough to bury a football field under 15 feet of waste material, the Washington-based industry group Nuclear Energy Institute said. About two-thirds of this fuel is kept in underground pools, which provide far better containment than for the third stored in above-ground buildings. But most of these pools are housed in far less robust structures than the reactor containment vessels, which are designed to contain the equivalent of a small nuclear explosion should things go badly wrong in the reactor core. Though the walls of waste storage pools are thick, reinforced concrete lined with steel, the roofs are made of ''pretty insubstantial material'' like sheet metal, Lynnette Hendricks, director of licensing at Nuclear Energy Institute, told Reuters. And while the pools lie within high security areas, there are fewer locked doors and safety barriers between spent fuel and the atmosphere than surrounds the fuel in the reactor. Another concern is the vulnerability of the pools' cooling systems. ``If you knock out that system, there are no automatic back-up systems,'' Lochbaum said. If the water boils or drains away, the discarded fuel would overheat, either melting or catching fire, threatening to release a radioactive cloud. POTENTIAL CONCERNS The pools, initially designed as temporary containers, can withstand earthquakes, tornadoes and other natural calamities, but were not built to withstand acts of sabotage. ``The pools are not designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner, but they are relatively small ... it would be extremely difficult for an aircraft, even if deliberately targeting one, to hit one,'' said Dricks of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. When most of the country's nuclear reactors were designed in the 1960s and 1970s, it was assumed their radioactive waste would be shipped off to a central repository or reprocessing facility. But commercial reprocessing was never successfully developed in the United States, and plans to open a permanent disposal site in Nevada have already been delayed 12 years until around 2010 -- if it opens at all. While legislators, power companies and environmentalists squabble over what to do with the spent fuel, storage space in the temporary facilities gets ever more crowded. ``Now (pools) hold considerably more (spent fuel) than in a reactor,'' said Gordon Thompson, a nuclear scientist and executive director of the Institute for Resource and Security Studies, an independent think tank based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It only takes about five to six years of operation for a power plant to produce more nuclear waste than it holds in its reactor, and the biggest of these pools now holds seven to eight times as much fuel as in a reactor, said Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or In-depth coverage about [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/World/Nuclear_Power_and_Waste/] Related News Stories · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Related%20Ne ws%20Stories/Nuclear%20power%20plants%20may%20be%20targets/*http://www.theage.co m.au/news/world/2001/11/03/FFXP61QTITC.html] - The Age (Nov 2, 2001) · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Related%20Ne ws%20Stories/Review%20of%20%26%2339%3Bweak%26%2339%3B%20security%20at%20civil%20 nuclear%20centres/*http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2 001/11/02/wnuke02.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/11/02/ixhome.html] - Daily Telegraph (UK) (Nov 2, 2001) · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Related%20Ne ws%20Stories/UN%20warns%20on%20attacks%20against%20N-plants/*http://www.ireland. com/newspaper/world/2001/1102/wor2.htm] - Irish Times (Nov 2, 2001) · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Related%20Ne ws%20Stories/National%20Guard%20Deploys%20to%20More%20Nuclear%20Power%20Plants/* http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011031/ts/attack_nuclear_dc_2.html] - Reuters (Nov 2, 2001) · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Related%20Ne ws%20Stories/Nuclear%20Industry%20Responds%20to%20Terror%20%26%2339%3BWake-up%20 Call%26%2339%3B/*http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/oneworld/20011101/wl/nuclear_indus try_responds_to_terror_wake-up_call__1.html] - OneWorld UK (Nov 2, 2001) [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/World/Nuclear_Power_and_Waste/] Opinion &Editorials · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Opinion%20%2 6%20Editorials/Security%20for%20Nuclear%20Sites/*http://www.latimes.com/news/opi nion/editorials/la-000084249oct22.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcomment%2Deditorials] - Los Angeles Times (Oct 22, 2001) · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Opinion%20%2 6%20Editorials/Time%20to%20face%20the%20nightmare%20scenario/*http://www.ireland .com/newspaper/opinion/2001/1002/opt2.htm] - Irish Times (Oct 2, 2001) · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Opinion%20%2 6%20Editorials/Labor%20peace%20at%20the%20Flats/*http://www.denverpost.com/Stori es/0,1002,417%257E129414,00.html] - Denver Post (Sep 3, 2001) · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Opinion%20%2 6%20Editorials/The%20Plutonium%20Nightmare/*http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/27/op inion/27MON1.html] - NY Times (registration req'd) (Aug 27, 2001) · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Opinion%20%2 6%20Editorials/A%20good%20nuclear%20plan/*http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story .asp?storyKey=64409&category=O] - Albany Times Union (Aug 23, 2001) [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/World/Nuclear_Power_and_Waste/] Related Web Sites · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Related%20We b%20Sites/International%20Atomic%20Energy%20Agency/*http://www.iaea.org/] - central intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical co-operation in the nuclear field, and as the international inspectorate for the application of nuclear safeguards and verification measures covering civilian nuclear programs. · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Related%20We b%20Sites/Radiation%20Effects%20Research%20Foundation/*http://www.rerf.or.jp/eig o/experhp/rerfhome.htm] - Japan - US organization conducting research on the medical effects of radiation on humans and on diseases which may be affected by radiation. · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Related%20We b%20Sites/Radiation%20and%20Public%20Health%20Project/*http://www.radiation.org] - nonprofit educational and scientific organization dedicated to furthering understanding the relationship between low-level nuclear radiation and public health. · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Related%20We b%20Sites/Radiological%20Emergency%20Preparedness%20Program/*http://www.fema.gov /pte/rep/] - details of the FEMA program whose mission is to ensure public health and safety living around nuclear power plants, and to educate the public about radiological emergency preparedness. · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Related%20We b%20Sites/RadWaste.org/*http://www.radwaste.org/] - international directory of radioactive waste companies, research centers, organizations, and government agencies. Includes FAQs on a variety of related topics. [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/World/Nuclear_Power_and_Waste/] Magazine Articles · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Magazine%20A rticles/Nuclear%20Safety/*http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=bivens_ wtc_20010916] - The Nation. (Sep 16, 2001) · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Magazine%20A rticles/Norway%3A%20Nukes%20R%20Us/*http://www.time.com/time/europe/eu/daily/0,9 868,174730,00.html] - Time Europe (Sep 14, 2001) · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Magazine%20A rticles/Not%20In%20Our%20Backyard/*http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010716/ha zardous.html] - Time Magazine (Jul 9, 2001) [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/World/Nuclear_Power_and_Waste/] Audio · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Audio/Bush%2 0Reconsiders%20Plutonium%20Disposal%20Deal/*http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/atc/2001 0824.atc.04.ram] - NPR (Aug 24, 2001) [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/World/Nuclear_Power_and_Waste/] Video · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Video/Expert s%20Gather%20For%20Nuclear%20Safety%20Conference/*http://mediaframe.yahoo.com/la unch?&p=news&l=SAM&a=0,15&provider=&bw=http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/a/g/av_ap_wl /&.test=1&f=&lid=rnv-56-s.1809108,rnv-128-s.1809108,rnv-200-s.1809108,rnv-300-s. 1809108,wmv-50-s.1809109,wmv-100-s.1809110,wmv-300-s.1809111,&t=%20-%20Experts%2 0Gather%20For%20Nuclear%20Safety%20Conference%20&dw=http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h /news//011102/163/hs44.html] - (Nov 2, 2001) · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Video/%22Saf ety%20and%20security%20are%20being%20reviewed%20as%20a%20mater%20of%20urgency%22 /*http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1630000/audio/_1631402_nuclear0630_mcgourty.ram] - BBC (Nov 1, 2001) · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Video/Anti-N uclear%20Protestors%20Disrupt%20German%20Train%20Bound%20For%20France/*http://me diaframe.yahoo.com/launch?&p=news&l=SAM&a=0,15&provider=reuters&bw=http://dailyn ews.yahoo.com/h/a/g/nm/%3Fu&.test=1&f=31042383&lid=wmv-28-s.1347713,wmv-56-s.134 7728,wmv-100-s.1347716,wmv-220-s.1347734,wmv-300-s.1347725,rnv-56-s.1347740,rnv- 128-s.1347740,rnv-200-s.1347740,rnv-300-s.1347740,&t=Anti-Nuclear%20Protestors%2 0Disrupt%20German%20Train%20Bound%20For%20France] - Reuters Video (May 15, 2001) News Sources · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/News%20Sourc es/Yahoo%21%20News%20Search/*http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news?p=%22nucle ar+waste%22+%22nuclear+power%22&z=&n=10&o=o&2=30&3=] · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/News%20Sourc es/Las%20Vegas%20Sun%3A%20Yucca%20Mountain%20Nuclear%20Waste%20Dump/*http://www. lasvegassun.com/dossier/nuke/] Related Full Coverage · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Related%20Fu ll%20Coverage/Yahoo%21%20Deutschland%3A%20Neuer%20Castor-Transport%20rollt/*http ://de.fc.yahoo.com/c/castor.html] · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Related%20Fu ll%20Coverage/Depleted%20Uranium%20Controversy/*http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/Wo rld/Depleted_Uranium/] · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Related%20Fu ll%20Coverage/Nuclear%20Weapons/*http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/Full_Coverage/US/ Nuclear_Weapons/] · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Related%20Fu ll%20Coverage/Ukraine%20News/*http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/World/Ukraine] · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Related%20Fu ll%20Coverage/Nuclear%20Test%20Ban%20Treaty%20Debate/*http://fullcoverage.yahoo. com/Full_Coverage/World/Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty/] Yahoo! Categories · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Yahoo%21%20C ategories/Chernobyl%20Accident/*http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/Ukraine/ Cities/Chernobyl/Community/Environment_and_Nature/Chernobyl_Accident/] · [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/World%2FNuclear_Power_and_Waste/Yahoo%21%20C ategories/Nuclear%20Power/*http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Energy/Nuclear/Nuclear_P ***************************************************************** 14 Beazley vows to stop Jabiluka - Ballot '01 November 4, 2001 [kim beazley] Giving them a spray: Kim Beazley applies insect repellent before his environmental policy launch in Perth yesterday. Photo: Paul Harris By Fia Cumming and AAP A Labor government would ban any new uranium mines, including Jabiluka, and review plans for a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney's south-west, Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has promised. Releasing Labor's environment policy in the Spectacles Wetlands in southern Perth yesterday, Mr Beazley said the ALP would stop Jabiluka from proceeding. The mine is in an area excised from Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory. The proposed nuclear waste store and repository in South Australia would also be cancelled, he said. "Under Labor, there will be no new uranium mines and no new nuclear waste dumps," Mr Beazley said. Plans for the new Lucas Heights reactor are well advanced, but Mr Beazley said a Labor government would examine the legal and financial obligations of the contracts signed by the Coalition. If possible, it would stop construction proceeding and at least review the licensing conditions. Mr Beazley also promised to appoint an independent commissioner for the environment to monitor, assess and report on environmental performance. Labor's environment policy received a "C" from the Greens yesterday but was overwhelmingly endorsed by environmental groups. The Australian Conservation Foundation said Labor's latest plans, coupled with previous announcements such as ratifying the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases, added up to one of the most significant policies for environmental protection that a major party had ever taken to an election. Friends of the Earth said Labor's stand on nuclear issues was in sharp contrast to the federal government's outdated obsession with the nuclear industry. The Save Forests Alliance, comprising 18 conservation groups, cautiously welcomed the plan to impose an immediate moratorium on the use of native forests for electricity generation while an independent review was conducted. But the alliance and the Wilderness Society, which called Labor "enlightened", urged the ALP to do more to protect old-growth forests. "Were Labor to recognise and act on the desperate plight of our forest heritage under Forestry and Conservation Minister Wilson Tuckey, the package would give all Australians the confidence that a Beazley government would be able to meet their environmental concerns," the Wilderness Society said in a statement. "There is simply no excuse for allowing the ongoing destruction of irreplaceable ancient forests like the 90-metre giants in the Styx Valley in Tasmania." The failure to present a detailed forest policy caused Greens senator Bob Brown to mark Mr Beazley down with a "C". "It is very frustrating for Labor as well as Green voters that Kim Beazley backs (Prime Minister) John Howard on woodchipping, which is destroying forests at the greatest rate in history for the fewest jobs," Senator Brown said in a statement. "Mr Beazley gets C for could do better compared to Mr Howard's F for failed." Women may see Howard home The leaders: what we think about them Aged care boss turns on government Beazley vows to stop Jabiluka Undeclared loan casts new cloud over Kernot Howard taunt on refugees We're insurance: Democrats Mundine fights for Senate seat Copyright © 2001, John Fairfax Publications. All rights ***************************************************************** 15 Poll: Plutonium, water top residents' concerns The Sun News - Myrtle Beach, SC The Associated Press "> The Associated Press "> Sunday, November 4, 2001 The Associated Press GREENVILLE | South Carolinians are most concerned about water quality and nuclear waste, according to an informal poll conducted by the Sierra Club. Most of those polled agreed with the statement, "Prohibit plutonium from entering South Carolina without an exit strategy," according to the survey conducted at the state fair in Columbia from Oct. 4 to 14. The Sierra Club recently passed a resolution agreeing with Gov. Jim Hodges to block radioactive plutonium from long-term or permanent storage at the Savannah River Site near Aiken. The club also opposes the use of plutonium in nuclear power plants. People also responded favorably to the statement, "Require [the state Department of Health and Environmental Control] to consider the long-term environmental impacts that a company may have upon a community before issuing it a permit." Other major environmental concerns were clean energy, hog farms and sprawl. Dell Isham, the S.C. Sierra Club executive director, said the club will consider the concerns when developing its agenda. All content © 2001 The Sun News ***************************************************************** 16 Shaheen blasted over Seabrook security © 2001 George J. Foster Co. November 3, 2001 By DAN TUOHY N.H. Statehouse Writer CONCORD — Former U.S. Sen. Gordon Humphrey is criticizing Gov. Jeanne Shaheen for not dispatching National Guard troops to guard the Seabrook nuclear power plant. The FBI’s latest alert, combined with the Federal Aviation Administration ordering a no-fly zone over nuclear plants, necessitates the highest military protection, according to Humphrey, a Republican who is running for governor in 2002. Shaheen defeated him in last year’s election. "If we don’t now have National Guard there, then we don’t have leadership in this state," he said. The reproach follows Humphrey’s comments during a gubernatorial forum Thursday in Portsmouth, when he faulted Shaheen for not being more diligent in protecting key state assets. Humphrey would not identify the assets; he said that would compromise state security. Pamela Walsh, press secretary to Shaheen, said the governor has acted accordingly by ordering a heightened state of alert across New Hampshire, including additional police patrols in and around Seabrook Station. "What people want from their leaders at this time is steadiness and level-headedness — qualities that Governor Shaheen has in abundance and ones that, unfortunately, Senator Humphrey lacks," Walsh said. Officers from the Seabrook Police Department and the Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office are augmenting existing security forces at the nuclear plant, Walsh said. In addition, John Stephen, the deputy commissioner of the Department of Safety, said the State Police’s aggressive driver unit has been reassigned to cover the Seacoast stretch from Seabrook to Newington. Walsh pointed out that several steps that Shaheen has taken to bolster security. They include undergoing a comprehensive review of all the state’s security and preparedness procedures, patrols of oil and propane terminals on the Piscataqua River and marine patrols of Portsmouth Harbor, Seacoast bridges and coastal waters near Seabrook Station. Steps taken statewide include an advanced review of disease cases, additional State Police patrols near the Canadian border and increased inspections of trucks transporting hazardous materials. After the second FBI alert Monday that additional terrorist attacks were possible in the next couple of days, some states in the south are calling up National Guard troops to guard nuclear facilities. Alan Griffith, a spokesman for Seabrook Station, could not disclose all security measures because of company protocol, but he said the plant is on its highest alert and functioning smoothly. In addition to the extra patrols, Seabrook Station is keeping a tighter watch on visitors. Griffith said the plant remains safe, and that the decision on whether to deploy the Guard would be one for the governor to make. Humphrey said it was fair game to criticize Shaheen because she is questioning — or "criticizing," as Humphrey puts it — federal policies on dealing with anthrax cases. In a letter faxed to Tom Ridge, the director of the Office of Homeland Security, Shaheen expressed concern about conflicting information from various federal agencies about a possible incident at the National Visa Center in Portsmouth. The conflict arose after the State Department and Centers for Disease Control requested that the state give antibiotics to 13 mailroom workers at the center, because they may have handled mail from a facility in Washington, D.C., where anthrax spores were found. Due to an apparent misunderstanding, misinformation was circulated on whether the mail in question was shipped directly to the Portsmouth site. U.S. Postal Office officials said the mail had stopped at several points along the way, which begs the question why the Visa Center workers would get antibiotics before postal workers. There have been no signs of anthrax at the Portsmouth plant and the 13 workers, who are employed by the private contractor Statistica, have shown no symptoms of being exposed to anthrax, according to state health officials. There was also conflicting reports on whether or not the 13 workers were taking the antibiotic doxycycline. Jim Adams, the Postal Service’s district manager of New Hampshire, said the employees decided not to take it. But Sandra Shipshock, the director of the Visa Center, confirmed that at least some of the workers had taken the medication as a precaution. In her letter, Shaheen said there needs to be one federal policy for dealing with such biological or chemical episodes. "The confusion, panic and uncertainty that result from federal agencies following and issuing conflicting protocols and policies can, in some instances, be as disruptive and dangerous as an actual biological incident," Shaheen wrote. In calls to the Office of Homeland Security, the governor said state officials received different answers from different people. ***************************************************************** 17 Labor denies Lucas Heights decision a bid for Green preferences theage.com.au, Breaking News Source: AAP|Published: Sunday November 4, 1:52 PM Labor today denied its promise to shut down the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor was a bid to win Greens preferences. Prime Minister John Howard accused Labor of selling out its aim of boosting medical research for political expediency, after the Greens announced they would direct preferences to Labor in most seats. But Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said Labor's environmental policy was not driven by preferences. "We are going for the environment vote, number one, because we think - not for politically cynical reasons - unless we are protecting the environment, this generation will betray future generations," he told Channel 10. Mr Beazley said scrapping the contract for a new Lucas Heights reactor would not harm research as the old reactor would still be working for some time. "Whilst that nuclear research is important, it is a small part of the total scientific endeavour that this nation makes, and it is replaceable out there," he said. Labor would hold an inquiry into the impact of a new reactor on the scientific community. Copyright © 2001 The Age Company Ltd. Any unauthorised use, ***************************************************************** 18 Howard attacks ALP policy of scrapping Lucas Heights reactor theage.com.au, Breaking News Source: AAP|Published: Sunday November 4, 12:51 PM Prime Minister John Howard said today Labor had sold out its promise to boost medical research in a cynical pitch for Greens preferences over the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor. The Greens have decided to direct preferences to Labor ahead of the coalition in two-thirds of seats, a day after the announcement of Labor's environment policy which included a pledge to scrap the southern Sydney reactor. But Mr Howard said closing the reactor would lose a valuable research facility and the capacity to supply up to one-third of the radio isotopes used in cancer treatment in Australia. "This will strike a body blow at cancer research in Australia," he told the Nine Network. "This is a man and a party that is advocating we put greater emphasis on medical research and cancer research ... and now for cynical political reasons he's going to sell that research out for a pottage of green preferences. "It is a miserable sellout for political expediency." Copyright © 2001 The Age Company Ltd. Any unauthorised use, copying or ***************************************************************** 19 FPL public access no longer routine PalmBeachPost.com Sunday, November 4 By Deborah Circelli, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Sunday, November 4, 2001 JUNO BEACH -- Fewer than two months ago, Florida Power &Light Co. wouldn't have thought twice about holding educational classes at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on Hutchinson Island. It would have regarded as routine a request from a reporter for a copy of the 113-page FPL Nuclear Notebook, with its extensive, detailed diagrams of plant layouts and component parts from steam generators to containment structures. Not anymore. Since the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the company has closed down its educational center, the Energy Encounter, which has been open to the public on a walk-in basis since 1990, and removed specific information about its two nuclear plants from its Web site. FPL, a subsidiary of Juno Beach-based FPL Group, also threatened a Michigan man with legal action Tuesday, demanding that he remove Nuclear Notebook excerpts posted on his Web site. "He had a lot of our plant information posted without permission," said FPL spokeswoman Rachel Scott. The man, Michael Rennhack of Benton Harbor, Mich., said Friday he didn't mind taking the information off his nukeworker.com Web site, and did so Wednesday. He said he has removed information pertaining to about 20 nuclear plants at the request of their operators. "Some of it is knee-jerk reactions by the companies, but I understand the climate we are in. I'm an American like everyone else and I want to make sure we are safe and secure," said Rennhack, who works on nuclear plant decommissioning. He started nukeworker.com in November 1999 as a tool for other nuclear industry workers to network and find jobs. The site has a list of all 103 of the nation's nuclear reactors, as well as technical documents about the plants. "It's a balancing act," Rennhack said. "I'm trying to give information to help people, but yet I don't want to give information that is not needed, that might hurt others." Many companies are only now beginning to respond to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission request to remove security information from their public materials, Scott said. At FPL, Sept. 11 changed the way the company does business, and that's without taking into account the National Guardsmen stationed at its nuclear plants since Wednesday. "We have always tried to have very open communication, and there is some communication we are continuing to do, just not on a broadcast, large-scale way," Scott said. FPL had planned to reopen the Energy Encounter on Monday, but that changed last week after federal officials warned of the possibility of another terrorist attack. There are also no more tours of the nuclear plant for media members and public officials. The NRC itself shut down its Web site briefly after Sept. 11 and is still removing information. The site used to provide everything from plant locations to daily status reports of the plants and evaluations. "The NRC policy of openness will not be changed. It's just a matter of what kinds of information that may or may not be available," said NRC spokesman Roger Hannah. Some groups have criticized government agencies for taking information off the Web. Brant Houston, executive director of Investigative Reporters and Editors Inc. in Columbia, Mo., said it is good to be cautious about releasing information over the Internet that might be damaging. But he said there has not been enough thoughtfulness about what is being taken off the Web. "We need to know where we are vulnerable. We need to continue to have accountability for our public officials' actions or inactions," said Houston, who added that much of the proscribed information is duplicated on other Web sites. "We certainly don't want to close our society because of what the terrorists have done. That is obviously their intent and we can't let them win on that account." deborah_circelli@pbpost.com Copyright © 2001, The Palm Beach Post. All rights ***************************************************************** 20 Belgian ministry says tighter security at nuclear plants "not yet necessary" BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Nov 4, 2001 Brussels: Warnings of possible attacks on nuclear installations are gaining in strength. "Yet, for the time being, it is not necessary to take additional security measures," said the Interior Ministry. Electrabel [Belgian electrical power authority], however, will have to screen new employees faster and more thoroughly. Over the past few days, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna and the US government have put it very clearly: a new terrorist attack could target nuclear installations. Belgium has nuclear power stations in Doel and Tihange. Security measures in these plants have been stepped up since 11 September. "We have contacted the IAEA, but so far we have not yet been able to see any documents. For the time being, there are no indications that warrant additional measures," said Koen Dassen, chief of cabinet of Interior Minister Antoine Duquesne. According to Dassen, this does not mean that the Interior Ministry is not alert. "Every day we look at incoming information and we decide on possible measures. So far, the risk of a nuclear incident in our country seems very small." Nevertheless, the Interior Ministry has asked Electrabel to screen recently-hired personnel faster and more thoroughly. "All Electrabel employees are being screened, but sometimes this has not yet been done for people who have been with the company for fewer than three years. So this will have to be done quickly. This screening also applies to Electrabel's subcontractors," Dassen said... Source: De Standaard web site, Groot-Bijgaarden, in Dutch 0000 gmt 3 Nov 01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter All Material ***************************************************************** 21 State confident with Millstone emergency plan Boston Globe Online: Print it! By Associated Press, 11/3/2001 17:34 WATERFORD Conn. (AP) The state has a comprehensive plan to evacuate southeastern Connecticut should a terrorist attack or an accident result in a radiation leak from the Millstone Power Station. The plan, detailed in a report that takes up two large binders, covers everything from the medical response needed to the number of buses required to evacuate local schools. In Groton, for example, some bus drivers are regularly tested to see if they know the best route out of town to Norwich. ''We're very confident of our plan,'' John Wiltse, director of the state's Office of Emergency Management, told the Norwich Bulletin. Thousands of details in the report have been ironed out over 20 years, including the communication each town would have with Millstone to determine if a mass evacuation would be necessary. The Connecticut Office of Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency have conducted annual drills in Waterford and the surrounding towns of Groton, East Lyme, Ledyard, New London and Montville. The drills test each town's ability to handle a variety of emergencies at the nuclear power plant complex, from a minor security breach to a full meltdown. In an evacuation, food, shelter and water would be provided by towns bordering Millstone. Wiltse said there has never been any specific threat against Millstone and any future threat would be ''extremely remote.'' Millstone spokesman Peter Hyde would not speculate on the threat of a terrorist attack on any part of the plant. ''All I can say is that security is heightened and we are constantly looking at ways to improve it,'' Hyde told The said. Gov. John G. Rowland recently deployed National Guard troops to Millstone and the Connecticut Yankee nuclear plant in Haddam, which is being decommissioned. It is impossible for the nuclear reactor at Millstone to explode like an atomic bomb, since the uranium in regular, commercial nuclear reactor fuel is not enriched enough. What officials worry about is a complete reactor meltdown. According to David A. Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer and a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, the temperature rises in a plant's core so much during a meltdown that the uranium fuel rods would melt through the bottom of the reactor. The fuel rods would sink about 50 feet beneath the plant, react with ground water and produce large explosions of radioactive steam and debris that would affect nearby towns. Lochbaum also is worried about the potential for an attack on the spent fuel rod pool next to the reactor. Anti-nuclear activists say that is protected only by 20 feet of water and a tin roof. ''An attack on those spent fuel pools would be much more catastrophic,'' Lochbaum said. A successful attack could empty the water from the pool, causing the spent fuel to overheat and creating a radioactive fire that could contaminate much of the region, he said. Anti-nuclear activists on Saturday called on Millstone's owners, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, to make radiation-blocking potassium iodide pills available to anyone living within a 25-mile radius of the plant. The pills act to block radioactive iodine by saturating the thyroid gland with stable iodine. ''The health of our children and families may depend on it,'' said Jospeh Besade, a member of the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone. ***************************************************************** 22 Labour wants to build 15 new nuclear power plants THE SUNDAY TIMES: NEWS November 4 2001 BRITAIN David Cracknell, Political Editor A REVIEW of energy policy by the government has concluded that up to 15 new nuclear power stations should be built to replace Britain's ageing generators. The review of energy needs for the next 50 years, conducted by the Cabinet Office's influential performance and innovation unit, says the building of new power stations will be necessary "insurance" after Britain becomes a net importer of oil and gas. This represents a U-turn for Labour, which stated in its 1997 general election manifesto that there was no case for more nuclear power, though this was quietly dropped in this year's election manifesto. The conclusion, reached after ministers began to worry about the security of energy supplies and the danger of California-style power cuts, is certain to anger environmental campaigners. The report, to be published later this month, will say that Britain's 15 existing reactors, 14 of which are due to be decommissioned by 2011, should be replaced. This would ensure that nuclear power will continue to provide about 22% of our energy needs. The review will recommend a shorter period for obtaining planning consent for new nuclear stations. It will also call for greater tax incentives for the nuclear industry, with appropriate changes to the climate change levy which was introduced to encourage power sources with low greenhouse gas emissions. While acknowledging that nuclear power is relatively expensive, the report says it should "be used to improve diversity" of energy sources. Ministers have recognised that allowing Britain's nuclear reactors slowly to go out of commission would leave the country dangerously vulnerable by relying on imports of oil and gas from unstable regions. The ministerial advisory group that oversees the review team is chaired by Brian Wilson, the energy minister, who is a keen advocate of nuclear power. It also includes Downing Street officials and ministers from the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign Office and the environment department. Last month members of the review team produced draft conclusions that doubted the potential future for nuclear power generation, but were ordered by the politicians to go back to the drawing board. The final conclusions have been strongly influenced by the discovery that within 20 years Britain could be forced to import up to 90% of its gas. As well as nuclear power, the review will also encourage the expansion of renewable energy sources such as wind farms, which account for a tiny fraction of power generation. Cleaner coal technology, although expensive, will also be encouraged. Britain has 15 nuclear power stations on 12 sites. The new power stations are likely to be built on the existing sites. Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 23 Taking a new view of Calvert Cliffs Sunday November 04 07:00 AM EST By Jason Song For people in rural [http://rd.yahoo.com/Dailynews/tribune/spot/inlinks/*http://www.co.cal.md.us target=offsitewindow] , the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant has long been an economic rock -- the largest local taxpayer and an important source of jobs. But since Sept. 11, some residents have begun to view the plant differently: Now they see it as something that places them near the center of a potential terrorist target. Perched on a slope overlooking the Chesapeake Bay, with its fragile ecosystem, the plant is less than 50 miles from Washington. Nuclear power experts and a local politician fear that it could face attacks by sea and air. "We've got to be kidding ourselves if we don't think [the plant] is vulnerable," said state Sen. Roy P. Dyson. "Surely the message of Sept. 11 is the terrorists are very aware of the airline system, and I think we have to assume they are very aware of our nuclear system. We have to change that." © 2001 Yahoo! Inc. ***************************************************************** 24 Reactors and Their Fuel Are Among the Flanks U.S. Needs to Shore Up November 4, 2001 THE NUCLEAR THREAT By MATTHEW L. WALD WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 — As they survey the industrial landscape for objects that terrorists could turn into weapons, members of Congress, governors and others are showing growing anxiety about the vulnerability of nuclear reactors, and especially their spent fuel. The Coast Guard and the National Guard are already patrolling many plants, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says improvements have been made since Sept. 11 to make reactors less susceptible to sabotage. The industry emphasizes that many design features intended to protect plants against accident result in "robust" structures that are also resistant to military attack. But studies that were available until recently on the Internet are being cited by a variety of others as reason to worry. One, done 20 years ago for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, raises the possibility of an airplane crashing into a containment dome or some less-hardened part of a reactor and causing a meltdown. Another, dated September 2000, suggests that breaching a cask used to store spent fuel would create a lethal radiation dose in an area many times larger than that caused by a 10- kiloton nuclear weapon. Other experts note that the spent fuel pools can contain 20 to 30 times as much radioactive material as the reactor core does. And the pools are in buildings not nearly as strong as those that house the reactors. "I'm not so worried about the core; I'm worried about the spent fuel pool," said Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont, who has asked for the establishment of a permanent five- mile no-flight zone around the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant in the southeastern corner of his state. "There's basically no protection there," he said in a telephone interview. Experts disagree about the extent of the vulnerability, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry say there is no cause for alarm. But the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted Thursday to require the commission to review the potential for attacks on nuclear plants , specifically to identify a new "design basis threat," or threat around which the plant's defenses are geared. The commission had opposed the amendment. The provision's author, Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, is a longtime opponent of the industry. Still, he won the near-unanimous agreement of his colleagues. "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is refusing to take up the question at all," Mr. Markey said. "We're mandating that they take it up." His amendment would also guarantee the continued existence of the office within the N.R.C. that evaluates physical protection at reactors. Before Sept. 11, the agency had a plan to turn that function over to an industry group, which it said could run tests more frequently. The details of the design basis threat against which the plants are tested are classified, but the threat is known to be a commando-type attack. Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, a nonproliferation group, suggested today that the basis should be "19 suicidal terrorists, technically sophisticated, coming at you from different directions." That would describe the groups that hijacked four airliners on Sept. 11. Some arguments are revised versions of the case that opponents have made against nuclear power for years. "We've never heard of a terrorist taking aim at a wind turbine," said Anna Aurelio, legislative director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, which favors ending the use of nuclear power. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's chairman, Richard Meserve, said that various improvements had been made since Sept. 11, but he added that reactors were smaller than either the World Trade Center towers or the Pentagon and, thus, more difficult to crash into. "It would not be a trivial thing to have a kamikaze attack," Mr. Meserve said. "It's a lot harder to hit than the World Trade Center." "We have all kinds of infrastructure in this country that is vulnerable to aircraft," he added. "You think about dams, chemical plants, refineries, skyscrapers, pipelines, any number of things. "I don't particularly lose any sleep over collisions with spent fuel pools, as compared to those other things." But threats to the nation's nuclear power industry have new resonance with some elected officials since the hijackings. "The risk assessment that existed prior to Sept. 11 is clearly inadequate," Representative Peter Deutsch, a Florida Democrat who is another member of the Energy and Commerce committee, said at the committee's meeting on Thursday. He said that a reassessment was urgently needed because some threats were clearly beyond what a private company could defend against and would require government action. In a telephone interview, he added that it was clear that the reactor containment would not be the only possible target. While the most obvious area of concern at a nuclear plant is the reactor, which operates under high temperatures and pressures and could vent radioactive steam in an accident, the bulk of the radioactive material at most plants is in the spent fuel pool. The radioisotopes, like cesium and strontium, are created in the reactor by splitting uranium. Since the fuel is moved from the reactor after about three years, it begins to accumulate in the spent fuel pool. While there, it sits under about 25 feet of water, which shields the radiation and carries off the heat that continues to emanate from the fuel. The industry estimates that even if all cooling stopped, the water would not begin boiling for 20 to 40 hours, and that even if it boiled, all that would be needed to end the problem is to add more water through something as simple as a fire hose. "These are huge structures, with a lot of inertia," said Lynnette Hendricks, director of licensing at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade association. Critics say that if the fuel were allowed to get too hot, it could ignite the cladding — a metal called zirconium — that holds the uranium fuel in place. The metal was selected primarily because it can be easily penetrated by neutrons, the sub- atomic particles that sustain a chain reaction. But a petition filed earlier this week with the N.R.C. by a nuclear safety group argued that the zirconium could provide the chemical energy to fuel a fire that would disperse the radioactive materials. The group was seeking to prevent the owners of the Millstone nuclear plant, in Waterford, Conn., from storing more fuel in a pool there. Until recently, the commission's staff said that zirconium would not burn once the fuel was a few years old, and its heat production was reduced as some of the radiation died off. But earlier this year, the staff retreated from that position. Still, Ms. Hendricks said that to set up a situation in which such a fire could occur, "you need to hook up a lot of `what-ifs.' " The other way to store fuel is to put it in dry casks, massive concrete and steel boxes filled with inert gas. Before Sept. 11, safety advocates and nuclear engineers described this as safer, at least for older fuel, because it used no water for fuel to leak into and no pumps to fail. But the casks sit outside the plant buildings, sometimes in sight from roads or nearby hillsides. They have been tested for transit accidents, but their security against attack with an antitank weapon or other armament is less certain. A draft study by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements discussed the risk of shipping spent fuel and calculated that breaching a cask could produce a lethal radiation dose in an area of 2,700 square kilometers. In comparison, the study said, a 10-kiloton nuclear blast would produce those doses in 47 square kilometers. Government officials note, though, that creating a hole in a cask is not the same as dispersing its contents; dispersion would depend on the size of the breach and the energy available to break up the fuel. The federal government was supposed to take responsibility for disposing of civilian reactor fuel in 1998, but the plan is now more than 10 years behind schedule. The Energy Department is trying to demonstrate that Yucca Mountain, near Las Vegas, is a suitable spot for deep burial, but has encountered a variety of problems. So the spent fuel risk, however great it turns out to be, will stay with the plants for years to come. In Wiscasset, Maine, where the Maine Yankee nuclear plant used to operate, the state is demanding the fuel be hauled out. Otherwise, the site could become, in the words of Paula Craighead, the state's nuclear safety adviser, "Yucca Mountain without the mountain." Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy ***************************************************************** 25 Dump site battle rages below the surface Journalstar.com: Nebraska Sunday, Nov. 4, 2001 BY SCOTT BAUER The Associated Press WASTE DUMP TIMELINE The Associated Press Key events in the effort to build a low-level nuclear waste dump in Boyd County, Nebraska: 1980 - Congress approves the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, which assigns states responsibility for waste and establishes the waste compact system. 1983 - Nebraska joins Louisiana, Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma to form the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact. 1987 - Central Interstate Compact chooses to build its waste site in Nebraska. 1989 - Possible sites in Boyd, Nuckolls and Nemaha counties are chosen for intensive study. Local monitoring committees established. Butte selected as the site by year's end. 1990 - Site's license application submitted. 1991 - U.S. General Accounting Office investigates and approves developer US Ecology's selection of the Butte site. 1993 - Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality and Department of Health announce intent to deny license. Site boundaries redrawn. 1995 - US Ecology submits initial application revision. Nebraska agencies initiate final review, which they estimate will take a year. 1996 - Central Interstate Compact sets reasonable schedule for state's completion of license review. 1998 - Nebraska health and environment officials deny license. Nebraska sued by waste generators, and later the compact, alleging state officials conspired to deny license. 1999 - Nebraska lawmakers pass law removing state from compact, which will take five years to go into effect. 2000 - The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals rules that Nebraska officials apparently delayed and tried to prevent construction of the dump. 2001 - Nebraska appeals its case to the U.S. Supreme Court. BUTTE - Just outside town, a couple miles from the South Dakota border, lies a field not unlike surrounding farm and ranch land. To the unknowing eye, it appears peaceful. Yet this desolate 110 acres of prairie has been at the center of political, personal and legal battles for 12 years. It is the planned site of a low-level nuclear waste dump. The site was chosen in 1989 by the five-state Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact, but not a shovel of dirt has been turned. Many other things have happened, however. Arguments over the dump have split the community. Longtime friendships have ended. The state of Nebraska has waged multimillion-dollar legal battles to block the dump's development. More than $100 million has been spent preparing for its construction. "It's just like a dud bomb that's all primed and anything will set it off," said Duane Pavel, the sheriff for surrounding Boyd County from 1992 to 1998. Outward anger over the proposed dump has prompted vandalism of signs around the site and once required a police presence at public meetings. Just a few weeks ago, a roadside billboard across from the site saying "There Will Be No Dump" was cut down by vandals. Some of the local tension died down three years ago when the state refused to issue a license for the dump's construction over concerns about a high water table and potential pollution. That doesn't mean people's attitudes changed. The waste compact commission is fighting Nebraska's decision in court while the dump's proponents argue it can be built safely and will boost the area economy. "Everybody feels the same as they always did. People have gotten used to living with the enemy," said Craig Zeisler, a dump opponent who farms 4 1/2 miles from the site. Ken Reiser, the former Butte mayor who leads a pro-dump group called People for Progress, says it's hard to ignore the division the issue has created in the area. "It's kind of like if you had a hail storm 10 years ago," he said. "You remember it, but your life goes on." Old signs dot the area farmsteads, including one that reads "Low Level is Not Our Level." Along a wooden and barbed-wire fence surrounding the field, a lone black and white "No Trespassing" sign is posted. Inside the fence is a one-room, tan weather station building built years ago. The proposed dump would be a reinforced-concrete bunker that could hold used filters from nuclear generators and resins, contaminated tools and clothing, and materials from nuclear utilities, industries, academic research centers and hospitals. The dump's genesis was in 1980, when Congress passed legislation encouraging states to work together to store low-level radioactive waste. In response, Nebraska joined Louisiana, Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma to form the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact. In 1987, the compact chose Nebraska as its host state. Two years later, the site near Butte in northeast Nebraska was selected over proposals in Nuckolls and Nemaha counties. Loren Sieh, who runs a gas station in nearby Naper, believes Boyd County was chosen for its remoteness. Only 2,400 people live in the county nearly 200 miles from Omaha, the nearest major metropolitan area. The site is as far away as possible from the four other compact states. "If it's such a great deal and it's so safe, Boyd County would never have gotten it. It would be along Interstate 80," said Sieh, who leads a local committee that serves as a liaison to the waste compact. While area residents remain steadfast in their opinions, the legal battle continues. Nuclear waste generators and the waste compact are suing Nebraska, alleging it has acted in bad faith. A trial is set to start next summer, and the case likely will take years to resolve. Meanwhile, the costs escalate. The dump initially was expected to cost $35 million and open in 1993. To date, more than $100 million has been spent and construction has not even started. The state is spending more than $9,000 per day - more than $3.2 million a year - on legal fees. No one even mentions an opening date any more. For Zeisler, Nebraska's alternate representative on the five-state waste compact, the issue comes down to the potential for any pollution to quickly enter a water source. The site is near the Niobrara River and an aquifer is close to the surface. "All of the hoopla isn't going to change the geology of this site," he said. "I wouldn't build a calving barn where they're building this thing." No matter how the issue is resolved, life will never be the same in Boyd County. "It tore up a whole bunch of friendships," Zeisler said. "There's a whole bunch of people who don't speak any more who used to do things together." Sieh admits the fight over the dump has changed his circle of friends. "A lot of friendships were made in those 12 years," he said. "A lot were broken, but even more were made. . . . I lost some friendships I thought were good friends, but you just keep going." Copyright © 2001, Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 26 What would happen if an attack on Millstone forced a sudden evacuation? TheDay.com: By Paul Choiniere - More Articles Published on 11/04/2001 'The roads are congested now. What would they be like if they were evacuating the town and all the towns around it?' Don Mitchell of Waterford, getting his hair cut by Michelle Jolonski at the Jordan Village Barber Shop Skip Weisenburger/The Day Traffic swishes by on Route 12 in Groton at about noon on a Friday. This is the northern evacuation route for Groton residents in the event of a nuclear catastrophe at the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant. Skip Weisenburger/The Day Gene Arters, director of emergency management in Norwich, holds a radiation detection survey meter. The instrument measures the radiation exposure a person may have experienced in a nuclear accident. Waterford -- What for more than 20 years has been a hypothetical exercise for government officials in the region – how to evacuate hundreds of thousands of people from a nuclear disaster at Millstone station – has in recent weeks taken on a frighteningly new reality. A successful terrorist attack on Millstone Nuclear Power Station would result in a large-scale release of radiation, presenting emergency preparedness officials with an unprecedented challenge to keep order. Two months ago, such a scenario was almost unimaginable. Today, it's security officials' chief concern. “The probability of something like this happening is almost nil, the odds are astronomical,” says Waterford's First Selectman Paul B. Eccard. “But then, what were the odds that the World Trade Center would be melted into a pile of rubble before our eyes?” Last week the Federal Aviation Administration ordered no-fly zones around nuclear plants. On Thursday, when an errant private plane got too close to Millstone, F-16s ran it to ground. The Coast Guard and the National Guard have been called in to patrol the land and water at Millstone's perimeters. And town, state and federal officials are reviewing evacuation plans. During drills, emergency planners in the region are typically asked to react to nuclear accidents involving a gradual deterioration of plant operations, as one system after another fails, leading to a reactor meltdown. It is a scenario that would give emergency response personnel hours, even days, to react. A terrorist action would provide no such luxury. Instead, it could result in a sudden release of radiation that would force emergency personnel to make quick decisions. Should there be an evacuation? Who should be told to flee? To stay? About 128,000 residents live in the emergency planning zone, a figure that swells to 200,000 during a typical workday. In the worst case scenario, many of those people would need to hop on local roads and get out of the area as quickly as possible. It'll never work, critics of the nuclear industry say. People living outside the emergency zone would also flee, clogging escape roads and preventing the 200,000 people inside the zone from escaping, they say. Panicked people trying to collect loved ones from schools and businesses would only add to the confusion. Eccard said he sees no value in trashing the escape plans and undermining public confidence. He said residents in the region must know what to do if there is an emergency and to follow the directions they are given. “We have to be prepared, but we have to have this conversation without scaring people,” says Eccard during an interview in his office. Spread out in front of him are piles of emergency planning documents, a dozen sticky notes attached to them. A small American flag pin is attached to his lapel. In Waterford, school buses will soon be stationed during the school day at the elementary schools closest to the nuclear plants — Southwest and Great Neck schools — rather than several miles away at the central bus lot. Teachers, administrators and other staff are being asked to obtain special licenses so that they can drive the buses, rather than awaiting the arrival of regular drivers. Under the emergency plan, schools handle the evacuation. Parents are not supposed to come for their children because that would only delay the escape, say emergency planners. Identification cards with photos and parent information are being prepared for Waterford children in grades three and under. Attached to the students during an emergency, they would help later in matching children with parents, Eccard said. Town and school officials have also taped a video on local evacuation plans that began airing this weekend on local cable access channel 22, available on Eastern Connecticut Cable. Please standby The first word would probably come via television and radio news bulletins. “There has been some type of incident at the Millstone nuclear complex in Waterford ... ” As the news spread among workers, friends and relatives, people would gather around TVs to try and learn more. Initial reports, supplied by witnesses phoning news agencies, would likely only add to the confusion and dread. “I saw a missile ... it was a plane ... a huge explosion.” Then the air would be filled with the shrill wail of 160 sirens scattered throughout the towns in the Millstone emergency planning zone: Waterford, East Lyme, Groton, Ledyard, Lyme, Montville, New London, Old Lyme and Fishers Island, N.Y. The towns, or some portion of them, are all located within the 10-mile emergency planning zone around the nuclear plant and its two operating reactors. The steady unchanging tone would continue for three long minutes, followed by an announcement, the disembodied voice booming across city streets and suburban neighborhoods: “A site area emergency has been declared at Millstone station. A potential for significant release of radioactive materials exists. Emergency response procedures are going into effect. Please monitor radio or television emergency alert stations for emergency information or instructions.” And so it would begin. Legacy The Federal Emergency Management Agency, the state Office of Emergency Management, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and local governments are all involved in planning an emergency response to a nuclear power plant accident. This level of planning is the legacy of the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979. Prior to that event, a reactor accident with off-site consequences was assumed to be a highly unlikely event. Emergency plans must now be reviewed and approved by FEMA. Drills are held annually to test the system. Operators working in a mock control room at Millstone are presented with a series of accident events, which they try to control, but which eventually lead to a hypothetical reactor meltdown. Emergency preparedness officials must make a set of decisions based on the information they are receiving, such as the amount of radiation released, wind speed and direction and weather conditions. Using such information they decide when public alerts should be given, whether and where to evacuate, and what personnel must be utilized. Once a state of emergency has been issued during an actual event, the final decision whether to evacuate rests with the governor. “We've drilled for a Millstone event for many, many years,” said Ron Kersey, emergency medical services coordinator and chairperson of the Emergency Preparedness Task Force at Lawrence & Memorial Hospital in New London. “This region drills heavily in this area and I think we are prepared.” L&M is indicative of the high degree of coordination that would be needed to make an evacuation plan work. Kersey would need information from NRC monitors as to the nature of the radiation threat. Because moving seriously ill patients could cause more harm than good, hospitals officials would only move patients as a last resort. Once an evacuation order was given, L&M would have to depend on the police charged with traffic control to make sure that incoming personnel and ambulances, many from faraway towns, could reach the hospital through the evacuating traffic. Eccard said the drills, while very valuable, can only go so far. They are largely “table top exercises” in which all events, and the public reaction, are imagined. There is no feasible way, said Eccard, of conducting an actual evacuation to see if it works. Your role in the event of a real nuclear accident situation can be stated simply, yet would be a difficult challenge during a radioactive emergency: Remain calm and do what you are told. Those instructions would involve one of two things — either sheltering or evacuation. If instructed to take shelter, residents should stay inside their home or workplace and close all windows and doors, while turning off any device that could draw in air. Sheltering could be utilized for three reasons. If the radiation threat is not high, emergency officials could decide it is better for residents in a particular area to ride it out inside. Conversely, a sudden and massive release of radiation could make evacuation impractical because it would be sending residents out into the radioactive plume. In that case sheltering would also be an option. Finally extreme weather conditions, such as a snowstorm or hurricane, could make a mass evacuation impractical, leaving sheltering the best alternative. Serious problems The option to evacuate is a decision state and local officials would not make lightly. Reid Burdick, the civil preparedness director for New London, said that in reality there is no such thing as an “orderly evacuation.” “Once we get to that point we have some real serious problems here, obviously,” Burdick said. “It is the court of last resort when all other options are gone. An evacuation is bad and only done to save lives.” Still, this area is about as prepared as it can be. Burdick said he is confident all rescue personnel would carry out their duties and many lives would be saved because of the plans that are in place. “I think it's very difficult to sit around and plan for every possible event that can happen,” Burdick said. “We don't know what they all are. No one can know.” If ordered to evacuate, residents are supposed to get in their cars and drive on the designated roads to reception areas, where they can be screened for radiation, receive medical help if they need it and shelter if they have nowhere to go. Evacuation routes and reception areas are listed at the beginning of the Yellow Pages in the local telephone book. In an emergency the escaped routes would be repeated as part of the evacuation order, and people would be ordered to designated reception centers. Those living or working in Waterford at the time of the incident would head to Wethersfield; East Lyme, Lyme, and Old Lyme to New Haven; New London to Windham; Groton town and city to Norwich; Ledyard to the University of Connecticut; while Fishers Island residents would take a ferry to Stonington and then be transported to Windham. Major employers, such as Pfizer Inc., with offices in Groton and New London, and Electric Boat in Groton have their own evacuation plans. A “site area emergency,” the second highest level of alert, would likely be issued in the event of a successful and significant terrorist attack on Millstone. Initiating actions for such an event include an aircraft crash that has a direct impact on vital structures, reactor core damage, and the potential loss of control room operations. If the damage was severe enough, this warning could be followed by a “general emergency,” the highest level of alert. Events that would initiate such an alert include “a physical attack on the plant that results in the loss of one or more vital areas” and a risk for significant offsite radiation doses. Emergency planners have divided the region into zones. The two-mile zone, consisting of the southern sections of East Lyme and Waterford, would be the most likely to see an evacuation. The 2- to 5-mile zone, including the central sections of East Lyme and Waterford and all of New London, could also experience an evacuation, depending on wind direction and accident severity. The remaining areas in the 5- to 10-mile area of the emergency planning zone are less likely to face evacuation and may only be ordered to do so if prevailing winds take the radioactive plume in their direction. If, for example, the wind is blowing from west to east, as is common, Groton and Ledyard may face an evacuation, but perhaps not Lyme and Old Lyme. Among the more controversial aspects of the plan is the requirement that parents should not try and retrieve their children from school, but wait to be reunited with them at reception centers. Deborah Ferrari, lead planning analyst for the state Office of Emergency Management, said that if schools were inundated with hysterical parents looking for their kids it would create much longer delays in getting everyone out. The parents would have to prove identity, the students would have to be found. The evacuation system could bog down, Ferrari said. “I'm a mother and my first instinct would be to get my child, but then you have to think what is really in the best interest of the child? If the goal is to get the kids out of there, then it is better to let the school staff do its job, get the kids on the bus and get them out,” said Ferrari. Waterford Superintendent of Schools Randall H. Collins said he knows many parents would ignore the order and come for their children. If parents arrive in time they would be allowed to take their children, he said, but they would not be allowed to slow the process. “Once the kids are on those buses we are not waiting, we are not stopping, we are on our way,” he said. 'Shadow evacuation' According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, it would take one-half to two hours for the plume of radiation to travel 5 miles from the nuclear plant, from one to four hours to travel 10 miles. Getting residents out of the exposed areas as quickly as possible would reduce the amount of exposure individuals receive. An evacuation would require a full contingent of police, fire and, potentially, National Guard personnel. Ferrari said the escape routes selected are based on the best information about how much traffic can be handled and where it would be coming from. Emergency personnel would be responsible for keeping as much traffic as possible moving in one direction, out of the disaster zone. But incoming lanes of travel would have to be maintained for arriving rescue vehicles needed to assist in the evacuation of hospitals, convalescent homes and other medical facilities. Each town maintains a “special needs” list of people who because of a mental or physical disability, or because they have no access to a car, will need special help to escape. People can be added to this list by contacting their town clerk. Individuals trying to get into the zone to retrieve a child, elderly parent or for other reasons would have to make their case to emergency workers. Eccard said tough decisions would have to be made. People could be turned back. The goal, he said, is to get as many people to safety as possible. A 1984 study: “Evacuation Behavior in Response to Nuclear Power Accidents,” challenges the assumptions on which the nation's nuclear emergency plans are based. The study by professors Donald J. Zeigler of Old Dominion University and James H. Johnson Jr. of the University of California at Los Angeles warns of a “shadow evacuation” that could overwhelm rescue efforts. During the Three Mile Island emergency, pregnant women and pre-school children within five miles of the reactor were advised to evacuate, all others were told to take shelter. If these instructions were followed, 3,000 children and 450 pregnant women would have evacuated. In reality, about 144,000 people within a 15-mile radius of the plant decided to evacuate. The researchers tested this phenomenon by questioning residents of Long Island at the time the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station was being planned for Suffolk County, Long Island. (The plant was abandoned soon after it began operations, in large part because of fears about the ability to evacuate the area.) Long Island residents were questioned about what they would do in reaction to a nuclear accident. If advised about a nuclear accident at Shoreham, but instructed only to take shelter, 25 percent of all households said they would leave. Asked what they would do if pregnant women and young children were instructed to evacuate, but no one else, 34 percent of those questioned said they too would leave. In a third scenario, people were told of an incident in which only those closest to the plant should leave, consisting of 3.6 percent of the island's population. Instead, half the population of Long Island – 430,000 families – could be expected to flee after hearing such an order, based on the responses to the survey. “These finding suggest that a high degree of spontaneous evacuation is likely to occur ... just as it did around Three Mile Island, during a radiological emergency,” concluded the study authors. “The brink” In southeastern Connecticut such a response could result in residents living north of the emergency planning zone flooding roads and highways and making it more difficult for those closer to the plant to get away. “Road congestion beyond the planning zone, cross-town traffic generated in an effort to assemble families, and the movement of emergency personnel into the area could all retard the speedy exodus of those closest to the plant,” stated the 1984 study. “In short, the evacuation shadow phenomenon could significantly lengthen the time it would take to evacuate.” This past week a regional committee examining the region's traffic problems questioned whether the road system would be able to handle a mass evacuation. The completion of Route 11 and other improvements are necessary to assure the area could be evacuated in a timely fashion, said the committee. Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Watch Dog Project, said anti-nuclear activists emphasized the problem with evacuation plans in their opposition to nuclear plant construction. He said the emergency plans are meant to give citizens a false sense of security about nuclear power. Dangerous levels of radiation could reach far beyond the 10-mile emergency planning zone, he said. “These plans are intended to downplay the significant and far reaching consequences of a catastrophic release of radiation,” said Gunter. The watch dog project is part of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, based in Washington. Gunter said smashing atoms to generate electricity was always bad idea and is now a worse idea in the age of sophisticated terrorism attacks. “We could step back from the brink still,” he said. “If we were to begin to phase out these nuclear stations, cool the spent (nuclear fuel) and remove it from vulnerable storage pools into strong, reenforced concrete bunkers, we could all rest a little easier.” Norwich ready Gene Arters, director of the Office of Emergency Management for the City of Norwich, would be among those to greet the nuclear refugees arriving in his city. Norwich has 35 radiation monitoring kits, 200 dosimeters (used to record radiation doses), and several radiation detection portals stored away and ready for use in a nuclear disaster. Arters said he is confident the emergency plan would work if people followed instructions, but he too fears people will panic and leave when they don't have to. “You could have people in non-evacuation areas choosing to evacuate and we could end up with people coming in from all directions,” said Arters. The Kelly Middle School on the outskirts of Mohegan State Park is the designated reception center in Norwich. The city would handle visitors from Groton, according to the plan. Arters said that if officials fear the public has been exposed to radiation, all evacuees would be encouraged to come through the reception center. There they could be screened for radiation exposure and given the appropriate medical response and, if need be, isolated because of the exposure threat they could pose to others. Fire and police personnel in the city are trained to help in the radiation monitoring and cleanup efforts. If the evacuation took place before a significant release of radiation — the goal of the evacuation plan — citizens would be permitted to go straight to other accommodations, such as the home of a friend or relative, Arters said. The city has 12 school buildings and numerous other public buildings that could be used as shelters in an emergency. It is expected that most people, however, will seek other places to stay, Arters. “How many people would be considered as shelterees? We just don't know what that figure would be,” he said. Arters said he hopes the public response to the new terrorist threat will not be one of fear, but of determination. People should know what they have to do in an emergency and be prepared to do it. “I think the face of America has been changed forever, but we have to control our emotions,” Arters said. “We have a good plan, but with any plan the success depends on the people it was designed for. It has to be team effort.” Evacuation site? What evacuation site? Region's citizens react to new fears Fishers Island plan no comfort © 1998-2001 The Day Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 27 Evacuation site? What evacuation site? Region's citizens react to new fears TheDay.com: November 4 By Paul Choiniere - More Articles Published on 11/04/2001 Dana Jensen/The Day The Millstone Nuclear Power Station, all lit up at sunset. Asked what she would do if terrorists carried out a successful attack on Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Ellen Wolf responded with black humor. “I think I'd probably vaporize,” said Wolf, generating laughter among the people seated at the restaurant table with her. Wolf was dining Friday afternoon at the Sea View Pizza Restaurant in Niantic. Her window seat offered a beautiful view of Niantic Bay and of the nuclear station out on Millstone Point. Even the most devastating attack on Millstone station would not cause a nuclear explosion, and no one would get vaporized, but it could release doses of an invisible killer: radiation. Emergency preparedness officials have plans for evacuating people from the radiation plume that could flow from Millstone in such an event, but not everyone, it seems, would know what to do. “I'd do what I'm told to do,” said Don Mitchell as he sat in the barber's chair at the Jordan Village Barbershop in Waterford. This is the answer that emergency officials want to hear. Evacuation plans have the best chance of working, they say, if those people told to leave do so and drive on the designated roads, while those told to stay, stay. Mitchell is a former selectman in the town and has accepted Millstone station as a neighbor for 31 years. The emergency plans could work if officials have time to coordinate their actions and formulate decisions, he said, but if the emergency situation developed rapidly it would be difficult. “The roads are congested now,” said Mitchell. “What would they be like if they were evacuating the town and all the towns around it?” During a series of random interviews, Mitchell was the only person who knew what reception center residents in his town are supposed to go to in an evacuation. Michelle Jalonski, who was cutting Mitchell's hair, said she would leave at the first hint of serious trouble. “I live in Groton, right next to the highway, so I'm heading north,” she said. “And I'd leave right away. I think everyone would. If you waited too long you might never get out.” This is not the answer emergency planners want to hear. If everyone hit the road at once in a panic to flee it would result in gridlock. Jacquelyn Goodwin of East Lyme expects that is exactly what would happen. She said she does not take the emergency planning seriously, but neither is she spending her days worrying something will happen at Millstone. “When you gotta go, you gotta go; I'm not going to get all concerned about it,” said Goodwin. “I'd probably just sit and wait. How are you going to get everybody out? On the same road?” Emergency preparedness officials distribute disaster plans to residents in the towns around Millstone, but many people are apparently like Robin Boisland, who doesn't give the issue much attention. Boisland can see Millstone station from her Niantic home. “You think about it and it's very scary,” she said. “But look, it's right there. I don't think we would even get a chance to get out.” What would happen if an attack on Millstone forced a sudden evacuation? Fishers Island plan no comfort © 1998-2001 The Day Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 28 National Guard sent to nuclear plants Chicago Tribune: Troops watching 6 sites in state By Ray Long and Christi Parsons Tribune staff reporters November 3, 2001 SPRINGFIELD -- Gov. George Ryan Friday ordered Illinois National Guard troops posted in full public view at nuclear power plants to quell concerns about safety and deter anyone from thinking about attacking a plant. The precautionary move, which was not prompted by any threat, followed similar action in Missouri and other states where officials have used guard troops to beef up security at nuclear plants since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "The National Guard has always been a part of the anti-terrorism security measures we've implemented in Illinois," Ryan said. "I'm calling for a more visible presence from them in order to provide a greater measure of comfort for the citizens and a more visible deterrent to anyone who may be thinking of using these plants to inflict harm on Illinois residents." After the terrorist hijackings in September, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission acknowledged nuclear power plants were not designed to withstand a deliberate crash of a jumbo jet. Officials are studying what would happen in such an attack, and what might be done to protect against it. The Ryan administration refused to define if the guard had a significant role at plants before the announcement Friday. "I want to assure everyone that we have not been given any warnings about a planned attack on our state or our nuclear facilities," Ryan said. "However, I also want Illinoisans to know that we are constantly reviewing our safety measures and will continue to make any enhancements needed. "The visible deployment of the National Guard is simply another way to show that we are prepared to address any dangers." Adjutant Gen. David Harris, who heads the Illinois Department of Military Affairs, said the missions will likely involve guard troops patrolling in Humvees around power plants and possibly guarding the gates. "We envision, as we structure the mission, both the roving and static type of patrol," Harris said. Ryan spokesman Matt Vanover said the decision was the result of the state's ongoing review of security since Sept. 11. Illinois officials have been working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to "ensure these plants have the highest level of security," Vanover said. Other states that have used the guard in similar ways are Arkansas, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and Arizona. The higher presence in Illinois is expected to begin as early as Saturday. Illinois officials were reluctant to say how many guard troops will be involved because, unlike the military police used at airports, this new mission is being done differently. Overall, nuclear power plants have beefed up security since the Sept. 11 attacks. Their guards must pass tougher federal regulations and all must pass firearms qualifications that allow them to carry handguns, shotguns and semi-automatic weapons. They also must pass FBI background checks and psychological screening. The company that operates all six of Illinois' nuclear plants received word Friday afternoon that the governor would be sending in the guard over the weekend. Though company officials had not requested the assistance, Excelon Nuclear spokesman Craig Nesbit said they supported the decision. "Anything the governor thinks will increase public confidence and security in the state is a good thing," Nesbit said. As of Friday afternoon, Excelon officials weren't sure exactly how the guard postings would change the current security plans. In October the state stepped up security at the plants by posting Illinois state troopers. Vanover would not say whether the guard troops would replace or augment state troopers, citing security issues. Excelon, which supplies power for ComEd, operates 11 nuclear reactors at six sites around the state, including Braidwood, Byron, Dresden, LaSalle, Clinton and the Quad Cities. Copyright © 2001, Chicago Tribune ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Oak Ridge guard pact running out at a difficult time Security officers and a K-9 unit at the Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge check vehicles entering the plant Friday morning. KnoxNews: Local By Frank Munger, News-Sentinel senior writer OAK RIDGE - The union contract for hundreds of Oak Ridge security guards - including the protective force at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant - expires later this month, complicating an already trying situation. It's hard to imagine a more difficult time for contract negotiations, given the heightened security in effect at federal installations since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But talks have been under way for a few weeks and are making modest to good progress, depending on the account. So far, the only concession to the circumstances has been a two-week extension of the contract deadline - from Nov. 15 to Nov. 29. That move was agreed upon to ease the pressure on Oak Ridge negotiators, many of whom are also involved in day-today security operations at Y-12 and working extensive amounts of overtime. "It's a tough negotiations, but you'd expect that," said Lynn Calvert, senior vice president and general manager of Wackenhut Services Inc., the Oak Ridge security contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy. "Even with the crisis, the president said, 'Conduct your business,' and we're conducting our business. It's time to renegotiate a contract, and that's what we're doing." Wackenhut is bargaining with Local 103, International Guards Union of America, which represents about 380 guards at Y-12, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Federal Office Building in Oak Ridge. There have been rumblings of discontent among the guard force, particularly at Y-12 - by far the most sensitive of the government's Oak Ridge installations and where the majority of union guards are employed. The level of dissatisfaction is hard to gauge because the guards are relatively inaccessible. Also, because of the newly declared war on terrorism and the focus on national security, now is not perceived to be a good time to complain. But in recent months, even before the events of September, a number of Oak Ridge guards contacted the News-Sentinel to express their concern on various issues - ranging from the type of weapons they're assigned to the lack of specialized training in certain areas, such as sniper and hostage situations. Economics, of course, is always a big deal heading into contract negotiations. "I'm sure our pay looks good to folks that are working over at Wal-Mart, but we're at least a $1 an hour behind (guards) at other DOE sites," said one security guard, who asked not to be identified because of concerns about retribution. It's almost unthinkable that guards would strike in the current scenario, but that possibility looms nonetheless. Mike Rimmer, president of the union local, acknowledged the guards have a no-strike clause in their contract - "while under contract." The implication was that once the current five-year contract expires, so does the strike prohibition. Rimmer said union officials are trying to be particularly cautious about what they say during negotiations because of the current climate. He fielded a number of questions - about the status of negotiations, the key issues and the possibility of a work stoppage - but said he wanted to meet with his executive board before answering them. He never responded to the questions. The last guard strike in Oak Ridge occurred in November 1983, less than a month after the Oct. 23 suicide truck bombing of the U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. Two weeks after that strike began, the Oak Ridge guards were ordered back to work against their will by the union's regional and international leaders, who cited national-security concerns. Following the back-to-work order, Kenneth K. Huddleston, the IGUA's regional director said, "We're not a knock-down, drag-out union. We love our country." Of particular concern was protection of the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, a warhead manufacturing facility that is the nation's principal storehouse of bomb-grade uranium. "I felt like that's a very vital plant," Huddleston said. "In this day and time, you could take 10 to 15 players in a terrorist group and blow up that thing or the whole country . . . We're living in a different time." Almost 20 years later, Huddleston's words seem prescient. In 1983, the guards were employed by Union Carbide, the company that then managed Y-12 and the Department of Energy's other Oak Ridge facilities. A couple of years ago, the security function was separated from the overall management of the federal plants, and DOE awarded the contract to Wackenhut following an open competition. Some guards have been critical of the current arrangement, suggesting the main incentive for the new contractor is to cut costs. There are those who would prefer to federalize the guard force, although that appears unlikely to happen in the near term. Steven Wyatt, a DOE spokesman in Oak Ridge, said the federal agency "is being kept abreast of the status of the negotiations between Wackenhut and the union. From our perspective, there is no reason to believe that the two parties will not come to a mutually agreeable contract." Wackenhut's Calvert said he hadn't even thought about the 1983 strike, and he said it hadn't been mentioned during recent bargaining sessions. "These folks are patriots first and then union members after that," Calvert said of the Oak Ridge guards. He said he has nothing but praise for the people protecting the federal facilities here. "They've been doing a lot of tremendous work, but particularly since the 11th," he said. "It has just been magnificent, very spirited and very patriotic. We are doing a lot of overtime, and a lot of changes are taking place. They were already under a lot of pressure. But they have not wavered. They have not complained." Calvert said one of the first people he heard from during the early hours of the Sept. 11 crisis was Mike Rimmer, the union leader. "He said, Mr. Calvert, I know you're busy right now, but I want you to know if you look over your shoulder in all of this, the men and women are going to be there. Whatever it takes. However long it takes. Without complaint. We'll be there.' "You can't imagine how valuable or how important that was." Frank Munger can be reached at 865-482-9213 or twig1@knoxnews.infi.net Copyright 2001 The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 2 DOE, contractors 'clean up' Web sites KnoxNews: Local By Frank Munger, News-Sentinel senior writer OAK RIDGE - The U.S. Department of Energy and its Oak Ridge contractors have been "cleaning up" their external Web sites in recent weeks, eliminating maps of facilities and other things that posed a concern in light of recent terrorist activities. Steven Wyatt, a spokesman in DOE's Oak Ridge office, said there has been a concerted effort to review information and graphics and to remove things that might be of use to terrorists or their supporters. Wyatt said DOE's Oak Ridge home page did not require too many changes, although some links were taken out - including one to a procurement section that advertised the sale of surplus weapons. Bechtel Jacobs Co., DOE's environmental manager in Oak Ridge, shut down its Web site for several days to review the contents. Dennis Hill, a spokesman, said the Bechtel Jacobs site is now available, but some maps and other materials were eliminated or revised. Carol Grametbauer of BWXT, the contractor that manages the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, said officials took out the plant's phone directory - which previously had been available at the company's Web site. "I think there also were some maps that had been attached to our visitor site, and some aerial photos that were taken off," Grametbauer said. She said most of the Y-12 changes were made soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, although there are continuing security reviews. Meanwhile, UT-Battelle, the contractor that manages Oak Ridge National Laboratory, has proposed permanent restrictions on Bethel Valley Road - the main thoroughfare that provides access to the lab. Dr. Bill Madia, the ORNL director, said Friday that UT-Battelle wants to permanently restrict traffic on Bethel Valley to vehicles with people doing official business at the laboratory. "This is just being prudent," he said. Madia said the contractor would like to set up permanent checkpoints at points east and west of the laboratory. The proposal has been submitted to DOE. Earlier this week, laboratory guards and Tennessee state troopers began monitoring traffic and turning back large trucks and vehicles pulling trailers. The permanent restrictions would bar all vehicles, including cars, except those with ORNL employees or people visiting the lab. Wyatt said DOE is receptive to the plan but wants to hear more details from UT-Battelle before acting. Frank Munger can be reached at 865-482-9213 or twig1@knoxnews.infi.net News-Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 3 Pakistan Releases 2 Nuke Scientists Las Vegas SUN November 03, 2001 ISLAMABAD, Pakistan- Authorities have released two Pakistani nuclear scientists who were detained Oct. 23 for questioning about their links with Afghanistan's ruling Taliban movement. Sultan Bashir-ud-Din Mehmood and Abdul Majid were released this week and were at their homes in Islamabad, Maj. Gen. Rashid Quereshi said at a news conference Friday. Relatives of both men said their movements were restricted. Quereshi said the scientists were not involved in any weapons programs and that they were questioned about aid projects they run in Afghanistan. Mehmood, who played a key role in developing Pakistan's nuclear program, is head of a non-governmental organization that is trying to help rehabilitate Afghanistan and stimulate its economy. Mehmood's aid organization, Tameer-e-Ummah, had operated inside Afghanistan with the backing of the Taliban's leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar. A spokesman for the organization said five members remain in custody. The international community is concerned about the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons because of fears that some elements in the military remain sympathetic to the Taliban, which is under daily attack from U.S. air power. President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has repeatedly insisted that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is safe, and Pakistani officials have said they do not suspect any nuclear information has been given to the Taliban. Mehmood, who left the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission in 1998, was hospitalized a few days ago after complaining of chest pains during his interrogation, his family said. "We are happy that our father is among us and we are thankful to the government for releasing him," said Dr. Asim Mehmood, the scientist's son. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 4 Official: No Collision With Kursk Las Vegas SUN November 03, 2001 MOSCOW- The sinking of the Russian nuclear submarine Kursk was not caused by a collision with a foreign submarine, the leading investigator said Saturday. "I don't know who is saying this, but I can tell you for sure: We do not have a single conclusion indicating this," Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov said, according to the Interfax news agency. The Kursk's entire 118-person crew died when explosions sent the submarine, one of the Russian Navy's most advanced vessels, plunging to the Barents Sea floor during military exercises on Aug. 12, 2000. Investigators have been examining the wreckage, which was raised from the ocean Oct. 8. Officials said the first explosion in the Kursk's bow was caused by a practice torpedo, but opinions have differed on what triggered that explosion. Most experts now believe it was caused by a flaw in the torpedo, but some officials had continued to say a submarine collision was a possibility. They included Deputy Premier Ilya Klebanov, who said this week that dents on the submarine's hull could indicate an "external impact." Ustinov said it was a second explosion, two minutes and 15 seconds after the first, that doomed the submarine. "We believe that the first explosion was the explosion of a torpedo," which in turn detonated ammunition stored in the front part of the Kursk, Ustinov said. Russian and American submarines played cat-and-mouse games during the Cold War era, sometimes coming dangerously close. Both the United States and Britain operate submarines in the Barents Sea, but both countries deny that their vessels were involved in the disaster. The Kursk was raised from the seabed by a Dutch consortium in a $65 million salvage effort and put in a dry dock on Russia's Arctic coast. Since then, investigators and forensic experts have pulled out 55 bodies, the last two of which were retrieved early Friday, the navy said. Another 12 bodies were retrieved by divers from the wreck last fall. Vladimir Mulov, the military prosecutor for the Northern Fleet, told Interfax on Saturday that 47 of the 55 recently recovered bodies have been identified. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 5 US Wants to Advise Pakistan on Nukes Las Vegas SUN November 03, 2001 ISLAMABAD, Pakistan- Concerned that Osama bin Laden is seeking to get his hands on nuclear weapons, the United States has dropped its punitive measures against Pakistan's nuclear program and is now offering to advise the country on securing its stockpile. The Americans spent a decade sanctioning Pakistan for building nuclear weapons, but that policy effectively changed with the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the United States. The United States now views Pakistan as an essential ally in the war against terrorism. The Americans want to cooperate with Pakistan on nuclear issues to ensure that no nuclear material leaks to bin Laden's al-Qaida network or comes under the control of Islamic fundamentalists inside Pakistan. President Bush lifted economic sanctions originally imposed in 1990 by his father. And when Secretary of State Colin Powell arrived last month, he went a step further, proposing that the United States provide training for Pakistan's nuclear facilities. "During his visit, Colin Powell offered us that kind of support, to train Pakistanis in America on the safeguarding of nuclear installations," said Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar. Asked if Pakistan had accepted, Sattar responded, "who would refuse?" Neither Pakistan nor the United States has released details. But the offer is believed to include training on everything from preventing accidents at civilian power plants to guarding against the theft of weapons-grade uranium, said Rifaat Hussain, head of the department of defense and strategic studies at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad. Powell, speaking Wednesday in Washington, said Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf "understands the importance of ensuring that all elements of his nuclear program are safe and secure." Musharraf "knows that if he needs any technical assistance in how to improve that security level, we would be more than willing to help in any way that we can," Powell added. The shift in U.S. policy does not mean American concerns about Pakistan's nuclear program have eased. If anything, the United States may more worried than ever about an arsenal that includes an estimated 20 to 30 warheads. Pakistan has never said how many weapons it has. The Americans have three big concerns about Pakistani nuclear weapons: the spread of nuclear material to terrorist groups, the prospect of Islamic fundamentalists taking power in Pakistan, and the fear of a nuclear war between Pakistan and archrival India. How serious is each threat? - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Thursday that bin Laden's network has been trying for years to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Rumsfeld named no countries. However, speculation has focused on Pakistan, which until the Sept. 11 attack had backed Afghanistan's ruling Taliban movement, which in turn has harbored bin Laden. There's also a widespread belief that the former Soviet Union, with its widely scattered nuclear program, impoverished scientists and soldiers and often lax security, would be the best place to look for a stolen nuke. Yossef Bodansky, a former consultant to the U.S. State and Defense Departments and author of "Bin Laden, the Man who Declared War on America," wrote that bin Laden has tried but failed to acquire weapons of mass destruction in several parts of the former Soviet Union, including Russia, Kazakstan, Ukraine and Chechnya. Politics are turbulent in Pakistan, but the country has kept a tight lid on nuclear materials and technology since it launched the program in the mid-1970s, noted Hussain, the analyst. He said Pakistan is proud of being the only Islamic country to build nuclear bombs, and has rebuffed efforts by other Islamic countries, including Iran and Libya, to acquire technology and material. Last week, Pakistan arrested two retired nuclear scientists, Sultan Bashir-ud-Din Mehmood and Abdul Majid. But the government insisted they were being questioned about alleged pro-Taliban sympathies, not about passing on nuclear secrets. Both were released, but a presidential spokesman said they were called in again Saturday for questioning. - Pakistan's history of military coups has raised fears that Islamic fundamentalists in the officer corps could someday seize power, thereby gaining control over Pakistan's nukes. Musharraf, who came to power in his own coup two years ago, recently purged the senior military ranks of officers viewed as Islamic fundamentalists. Five of the top 14 officers were moved to lesser positions. "This threat has receded," said Hussain. "Anyone harboring these kinds of ideas has been sidelined." Islamic parties have been staging noisy street protests against Musharraf's decision to abandon the Taliban and side with the United States. However, the parties have never fared well in elections, and throughout Pakistan's 54-year history, its leaders have sought close ties with the United States and the West. - Nuclear tension between Pakistan and India has created several crises in the past decade and many believe it remains the greatest threat to the region. The countries conducted back-to-back nuclear tests in 1998, and a year later were fighting yet again over the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir. Both countries have nuclear weapons that could be delivered by warplanes or missiles. However, neither has the "push-button" capability to launch, according to Aslam Beg, a Pakistani retired army chief. Pakistan keeps its nuclear warheads separate from the other components of the weapon, Beg said, adding that the bomb would first have to be assembled, and then launched from either from a missile or a plane. "There would be a gap of hours, or even days before it could be put together," said Beg. Pakistan and India remain archenemies, exchanging artillery fire almost daily across the disputed frontier in Kashmir. However, they have agreed not to target each other's nuclear facilities, and even hard-liners such as Beg believe the existing tensions aren't an insurmountable obstacle to progress on the nuclear issue. Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes, normally a harsh critic of Pakistan, even had a kind word to say this week about Pakistan's handling of its nuclear program. "Politics apart, I must give (the Pakistanis) credit. They are responsible people and will not allow people to walk away with nuclear weapons," said Fernandes. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 6 The U.S. should seize the chance to buy Russia's enormous stockpiles of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium -- before they fall into the wrong hands. Avoiding nuclear disaster Published: Sunday, November 4, 2001 BY BRETT WAGNER Commentator The catastrophic terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 sent an urgent and long overdue wake-up call to America to take seriously the continuing efforts by terrorist groups to acquire nuclear weapons. Had any of the attacks involved a nuclear device, we might now be discussing tens of thousands of fatalities, millions of casualties and potential radiation victims, and trillions of dollars in collateral damage. We would also be discussing America's failure to take seriously Russia's long-standing offer to sell its enormous under-secured nuclear stockpiles -- the most likely source of terrorist nuclear capability -- to the United States for use as fuel in nuclear power plants and other peaceful purposes. Fortunately, a deal is in the works to secure Russia's "loose nukes" before they start slipping into terrorists' hands. When the Soviet Union was breaking apart 10 years ago, many Americans excitedly toasted the "end of the Cold War." Most Americans failed to ask a crucial question: Wasn't the impending collapse of a nuclear superpower's entire social, political and economic system cause for concern? A decade later, the discussion has definitively shifted from how much safer the world is now to how much more dangerous it has become. The collapse of the Soviet system has revealed a nuclear weapons infrastructure without reliable controls, protections or accountability. Some 700 to 800 tons of highly enriched uranium and 150 to 200 tons of weapons-grade plutonium are stored in makeshift warehouses protected by $5 combination locks. The government has no accounting system capable of keeping track of it all. It would only take 15 to 20 pounds of uranium, or an even smaller amount of plutonium, to arm a device capable of leveling downtown Washington or lower Manhattan. The blueprints and non-nuclear components necessary to build crude but highly effective nuclear weapons are readily available. Small amounts of stolen or diverted Russian uranium and plutonium already have been confiscated by European law enforcement from sellers looking for buyers. The United States currently lists more than a dozen rogue states and terrorist organizations, including Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida, that are looking for sellers. If any of them get their hands on enough material to arm a device, we won't be talking about a 30-minute warning -- we may not get any warning at all. One could say we're already living on borrowed time. Against this backdrop of loose nukes, rogue states, arms traffickers and terrorist groups flush with cash has emerged one of the greatest opportunities of the post-Cold War era: buying Russia's excess nukes. For several years, Russia has been hinting it would be interested in selling its enormous stockpiles of excess weapons-grade uranium and plutonium to the United States for use as fuel in nuclear power plants. A deal was struck in 1993 by then-President Clinton and former Russian leader Boris N. Yeltsin for the United States to purchase all the uranium from the warheads Russia is dismantling in compliance with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties. Extending this agreement to include the rest of Russia's excess fissionable materials, including both uranium and plutonium, would seem to be the next logical step in this process. Unfortunately, the idea has never caught fire on Capitol Hill, despite a relatively low $10 billion price tag. A group of international financiers has now come forward offering to underwrite the entire amount necessary to secure all of Russia's excess fissionable materials. The money would be raised in the form of independently issued, government-backed bonds. Just before Congress adjourned for its August recess, Sen. Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M., introduced a bill that establishes a framework for how such a transaction might take place. Now Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., is introducing a bill on the House side. The current proposal is not without flaws. Among them, the bill currently sets an expiration date of Dec. 31, 2004, for extending new loans, failing to take into account the time frame necessary to complete the process under even optimal circumstances. And it puts a $1 billion cap on loans at any one time -- an obvious potential roadblock that could bring the entire process to a halt should the Russians deliver the material to the International Atomic Energy Agency-approved sites faster than it can be reprocessed and sold. Still, Domenici's bill is a giant step forward, and it provides a valuable foundation for what should become the first major nuclear-arms reduction agreement of the 21st century. Moreover, it represents a tremendous potential bargain for the American people, considering that international investors would be financing virtually the entire deal. The only significant cost to the U.S. taxpayer would be $10 million a year for the cost of administration in the United States, and up to $15 million a year to help cover the expenses of the International Atomic Energy Agency. This should appeal even to those members of Congress who are most reluctant to lend the Russians money for anything -- even when their nuclear stockpiles are in jeopardy. If we let this opportunity slip away through inaction or partisanship, we will have no one to blame but ourselves when we run out of borrowed time. Wagner is president of the California Center for Strategic Studies. Distributed by the Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service. © 2001 PioneerPlanet / St. Paul (Minnesota) Pioneer Press / TwinCities.com- All ***************************************************************** 7 U.S. Worries About Pakistan Nuclear Arms (washingtonpost.com) Officials Try to Guard Against Arsenal, Radioactive Material Going to Terrorists By Steven Mufson Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, November 4, 2001; Page A27 About two weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a group of medium-level Bush administration officials met with experts on South Asia for a discussion of whether war in Afghanistan might detonate a series of bigger problems in Pakistan -- including the loss of control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. That arsenal holds about 30 nuclear weapons and perhaps as many as 50, according to experts on Pakistan's nuclear program. There has been mounting concern in the United States that those weapons, their plans or some of the radioactive materials could fall into the hands of terrorists or their allies should the Pakistani government fall as a result of its decision to support the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. "If domestic instability leads to the downfall of the current Pakistani government, nuclear weapons and the means to make them could fall into the hands of a government hostile to the United States and its allies," said David Albright, a South Asia expert at the Institute for Science and International Security. Those fears were fanned a week ago when Pakistan detained two retired nuclear scientists, including Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, the former chief designer and director of the country's Khoshab Atomic Reactor who for the past three years has run a relief organization and traveled frequently to Afghanistan. Mahmood was a pioneer in Pakistan's efforts to enrich uranium, a key ingredient for nuclear weapons, and held a patent on a technique for stopping leaks of heavy water from enrichment plants. Later he helped manage the construction of a reactor that produces plutonium, also used in nuclear weapons. Mahmood has made no secret of his political views. After Pakistan exploded a nuclear device in May 1998, Mahmood said the country should not give in to international pressure to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Instead, he said, Pakistan should enhance its capability to "at least match our enemy," India, "in order to safeguard our independence." The other detained nuclear scientist, Abdul Jajid, worked in Pakistan's Atomic Energy Commission. Pakistan has asserted that its nuclear arsenal is safe. Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdus Sattar said in a statement Friday that "Pakistan has an impeccable record of custodial safety and security free of any incident of theft or leakage of nuclear material, equipment or technology." Though the United States usually supports civilian control of nuclear weapons around the world, it has endorsed continued military control of the weapons in Pakistan because the military is seen as more professional and stable than other elements of Pakistani society. Experts say the military chain of command appears intact despite turmoil and reshuffling at the top of the government, and most of the sympathizers of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia in the government are believed to be in the intelligence service. But Bush officials remain anxious. John R. Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, without singling out Pakistan, said Thursday that since Sept. 11 "my concern about nuclear weapons everywhere has gone up." He said he worried that a hostile state, or nonstate organization, might acquire such a weapon and that the attacks in New York showed they would be willing to use them. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday that the United States had "certain knowledge" that the al Qaeda terrorist network headed by Saudi-born fugitive Osama bin Laden "had an appetite for acquiring weapons of mass destruction of various types, including nuclear materials." A recent article in the New Yorker magazine by Seymour Hirsch alleged that the U.S. military had a secret plan to destroy Pakistan's nuclear weapons, and that a special team had trained with Israeli advice and assistance. The State Department and Pentagon have denied the report. Experts doubt such plans could succeed in any case. Because of Pakistan's long-standing fear that Israel, India or the United States might seek to destroy its nuclear weapons program, Pakistan's weapons are probably spread among several sites, making it difficult for any foreign special operations force to destroy or defuse. Experts say Pakistan might keep its warheads separate from missiles, for safer storage. "People talk about getting the nuclear weapons. I don't know how you would do that," Albright said. "I think it would be very dangerous right now. The Pakistanis are very paranoid about what U.S. intentions are right now." Administration officials are eager to increase the safety of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. But they want to do so in a way that would not give Pakistan greater confidence to deploy the weapons or fan fears in Islamabad that the United States simply wants to collect information about the weapons so they could be destroyed. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said last week that he had discussed the issue with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf during his visit to Islamabad last month. "He knows that if he needs any technical assistance on how to improve that security level, we'd be more than willing to help in any way that we can," Powell said. Some administration officials have raised among themselves the possible transfer of "permissive action links," devices that would prevent warheads from being armed unless a number of people punched in codes. But many experts worry that such devices would encourage Pakistan to deploy weapons now kept in pieces for safekeeping. Robert Einhorn, the Clinton administration's top nonproliferation official, said the United States should limit aid to improvements in the physical security around nuclear weapons sites through better surveillance equipment. "We should pursue a program of cooperation that does not contribute to the operational capability of Pakistan's nuclear force," said Einhorn, a fellow at the Center of Strategic and International Studies. That, however, might not help if the government falls. "The real threat is not that some guys with beards are going to run through and capture these things but that, with a change in government, control will change hands. That's not something better fences is going to solve," said George Perkovich, author of a book on Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Most experts say the greatest terrorist danger comes from the possible theft of nuclear material, such as enriched uranium or plutonium. They said the theft of a nuclear weapon would be more difficult and more easily detected by Pakistani authorities. That fissile material could be given to Iraq, which has sought to make its own nuclear weapons. Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project said an even greater danger would be that a terrorist could obtain nuclear waste from a Pakistani plant and use it in a conventional explosion to spread hazardous radioactive material. Though the explosion would kill more people, at least initially, than the radioactive waste, it would have a "terror effect," Milhollin said. © 2001 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 8 HOW KURSK DIED Daily Record Amazing account by the British nuclear scientist working at sub wreck for the Russians THE Russian submarine Kursk sank after the test-firing of a top-secret torpedo went disastrously wrong, the Sunday Mail can reveal. Dr John Large, who led the salvage operation to raise the sub, described how the vessel was turned into a giant bomb after a "schoolboy chemical reaction" inside the cramped torpedo room. The Kursk went down in the Barents Sea in August last year with the loss of all 118 officers and crew. It was built to withstand attack from the outside - but any internal explosion would have caused major damage inside its pressurised hull. Dr Large, a consultant in nuclear engineering and a Government adviser, revealed how the initial explosion was caused after the test-firing of a top-secret torpedo went catastrophically wrong and it jammed in the tube. The torpedo exploded when hydrogen peroxide reacted with fuel propellant, turning the forward compartment into an inferno. The panic-stricken crew then spent two desperate minutes trying to control the resulting blaze before a second devastating explosion sealed the sub's fate. Another seven torpedoes blew up, blasting a massive hole in the hull. Speaking for the first time since returning from Russia, Dr Large said: "This was a truly terrifying event. Terrifying in its speed and its destructive power." His findings rule out theories that the Kursk sank after colliding with a spy sub, hitting a World War II mine or being struck by a missile from another Russian sub. His conclusions are based on his own on-site research, new evidence passed to him by the Russian authorities and, crucially, personal conversations with Vice Admiral Barskov, vice commander of the Russians Northern Fleet. Officially the Russians have accepted that a torpedo explosion sank the Kursk but have not said what caused it - though they have suggested it followed a collision with a British or American submarine. But Dr Large has ruled out any such collision. The scientist said the Kursk was testing an experimental torpedo capable of travelling at an astonishing 160mph underwater with a range of 20 kilometres. The so-called 'super cavitating' torpedo - codename Shkval or Squall - used hydrogen peroxide gas to reduce friction around its nose as it powered through the water. But together with the torpedo's propellant fuel, it is a highly unstable mixture. Hydrogen peroxide was blamed for the loss of the Royal Navy's sub HMS Sidon in 1955. In that instance too hydrogen peroxide was being used as a propellant, but its use as a fuel was later abandoned. However, the Russians continued to research its use as an 'underwater lubricant', when the gas would be released to surround the nose of the torpedo, reducing its friction through the water. Dr Large said: "On firing, the torpedo jammed in the tube and became almost like a flame-thrower. "Hydrogen peroxide is quite stable until it comes into contact with other agents, it then becomes a dangerous catalyst. "In the case of the Kursk it seems the hydrogen peroxide gas motor was running before the torpedo was fired, that was the problem in hindsight. "When the torpedo jammed, the hydrogen peroxide reacted with the gas used to propel the motor. There was a schoolboy chemical reaction and the fate of the Kursk was sealed." Though the prototype torpedo had no nuclear warhead, it is estimated the misfiring was equivalent to the explosive force of just over 200kgs of TNT. The sub was at periscope depth and doing about six knots when the first blast rocked through the hull. The explosion also caused hydraulic damage and broke the electrical circuits. What happened next was chilling. For 135 seconds all contact between the Russian surface fleet and the Kursk was lost. As crew who had survived the initial blast scrambled to emergency stations, the commanders desperately tried to regain control of their stricken vessel. It is known that the Kursk's commander Gennady Lyachin was in compartment three or four - the sub's control and radio rooms - and is likely to have survived the initial blast. Although crippled, it is thought the sub was still relatively stable as it glided deeper into the Barents Sea. But the inferno in the forward torpedo room was now creeping into the arsenal behind. Dr Large said: "In those 135 seconds there was quiet. But the torpedo which had jammed and exploded either then blew off the rear torpedo door or burned through it into compartment number one where there was an arsenal of torpedoes. "After 135 seconds seven standard torpedoes exploded in just a fifth of a second. That was the end of the Kursk. That is what sunk the boat. "When I saw the damage I could not believe it. There was a hole you could drive a bus through." Dr Large's findings are supported by evidence from the British Government seismic monitoring station at Blacknest, Berkshire. As the Kursk was going down, scientists there picked up readings which appeared to be small earthquakes in the Barents Sea. The first was a very minor tremor - caused by the jammed torpedo exploding - the second, just over two minutes later, hit four on the Richter Scale, the size of an earthquake. Dr Large, who was head of the nuclear safety committee over- seeing the raising of the Kursk, says what still cannot be explained is the origin of a huge fire in compartment number three. He said: "There was a very significant fire on board in that compartment. How it was ignited and if it was linked to what happened in the first compartment we don't know. "But the heat was tremendous and it does seem odd. "It may have been caused by a sudden power surge when the emergency back-up batteries started-up. "The Russian Navy gave me the damage diagnostics and I also carried out my own research. "The Russians were very open with me - but then they had to be." What is more certain, according to Dr Large, is the fate of the Kursk's crew during those final few minutes. He said: "I believe all the crew, except about 20 in the stern, died within seconds. Those who survived the initial blasts lasted only a few hours." Only this week a farewell message in a bottle belonging to chief warrant officer Oleg Borisov was found by investigators searching the wreck of the Kursk. Other notes have also been found. Dr Large, who says he is sure there were no nuclear warheads on the Kursk, says lessons can be learned from the disaster. But he also raises a frightening scenario of other nuclear subs that are lost in accidents. He said: "I am afraid this tragedy shows many things. The first lesson is do not fire an experimental torpedo from a fully-armed submarine. Another is that there are serious problems with Russian submarine design. "But all nuclear navies of the world have to ask themselves if they have the capacity to recover their submarines, because on this occasion the Russians were lucky the Kursk sank in relatively shallow water. Another 200 metres and it would not have been possible. "The Dutch salvage team did a fantastic job and developed their technology quickly to raise the Kursk, but in deeper water the boat would still be lying on the bottom with nuclear reactors prone to corrosion." Last Monday, Russian salvage workers removed the first three of 22 Granit cruise missiles from the submarine. The workers have also removed 45 bodies since it was lifted into dry dock last week. Another 12 bodies were removed last year. Investigators, who have had to battle against lethal hydrogen sulphite gas in some areas, have so far been unable to reach a section connecting two compartments containing the submarine's two nuclear reactors because it was filled with debris from the blast. Dr Large visited the salvage site several times over the last three months and oversaw the raising of the vessel from the salvage team's control room in Rotterdam. He also monitored the raised submarine's docking at Severomorsk, but was not allowed on board. He said: "All Western personnel had to be removed from the area before the dry dock was even drained." The Kursk had two nuclear 220 megawatt reactors. It is these reactors which now pose a potentially dangerous environmental hazard. Dr Large revealed that the Russian Federation is now seeking between pounds 20million and pounds 30million from the EC to remove the nuclear fuel from the vessel's reactors. But he said the money should not be given unless the Russians gave assurances that such a potentially disastrous operation can meet Western safeguards. He added that during the lift there was still the risk of torpedoes falling out of the Kursk on to the cut off section or sea bed. He said: "The risk of torpedo explosion was real. We built into our safety plan that the reactors could withstand the blast of two torpedoes and the surface ships could also withstand the blast." When she finally emerged from the waves, witnesses were astonished to see the concentration of the damage to the Kursk. Almost 70 per cent of her 10,000 tonne hull was intact, still sleek and ominous. But below the distinctive coning tower, with its Russian eagle badge, there was massive damage. The vast bow had been torn apart by the massive explosions. Inside the cavernous gloom of the hull was a twisted, scorched mangle of metal and wiring towering above workers as they scurried around the Murmansk dry dock under the watchful eye of Vladimir Ustinov, the Russian investigator. Surveying the scene one salvage worker said: "You can only imagine what it was like for the men inside. It sends a chill down my spine to even think of their final moments. COUNTDOWN TO DISASTER A top secret, experimental torpedo, codenamed Squall, jams in its tube as the crew of the Russian submarine Kursk try to fire it during a routine training exercise in the Barents Sea. 2 The torpedo explodes inside the chamber sparking a furious fire in the torpedo chamber and severing the submarine's power system. 3 The fire ignites the Kursk's seven torpedoes. Explosion rips away the front of the sub, leaving a hole big enough to drive a bus through. 4 Officers in the control room try to regain control after the initial blast but 135 seconds later the second blast rips open the hull. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************