NORTON -- Work dealing with the non-radioactive wastes on the Shpack dump site is expected to continue in the next several months, despite the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers temporary retreat from the project.
Dave Lederer of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which is overseeing the cleaning up of toxins and chemicals on the 8-acre site, said his agency is continuing to work with the so-called potentially responsible parties on those remediation plans.
A draft work plan was submitted by the parties, headed by Texas Instruments, in May, he said.
Comments were made by the EPA and the second and what Lederer says is hoped to be the final draft is expected to be submitted in the coming week.
He said those plans will then be distributed again for comments.
`` The goal is to get them out in the field within the next several months,'' he said.
`` It does not look like the effort will be hampered to a great extent now that the Corps effort is on hold,'' said Lederer.
His comments come just days after local congressmen and other officials met in Washington D.C. to determine how to get the Army Corps to proceed with the project to clean up the radioactive wastes at the former dump on the Norton/Attleboro line.
The Corps, about two weeks ago, stated that it was dropping the project because a consultant's report found that the federal government has no liability for radioactive wastes there.
As a result of the meeting, it was agreed that an act of Congress will be sought in the fall to approve wording that will authorize the Corps to return to work on the site.
The EPA and the Army Corps had been developing a joint schedule of work at the site which put the completion of cleanup in the spring of 2003.
According to the schedule released several months ago, the EPA anticipated the collection of more information needed to complete the characterization of the site for non-radiological contaminants this year. Soil borings are to be drilled at various depths and samples of soil, sediment and water are to be collected and analyzed for chemical contaminants.
Residents in that area recently received results of well sampling conducted this past spring. Lederer said no contaminants were above the allowed federal and state drinking water standards.
The schedule released earlier this year also stated that a decision by EPA and the state DEP on the extent of cleanup work for non-radiological contaminants on the site would come `` as soon as is practical after the scope of the (Army) Corps cleanup work is defined.'' Some of that work was supposed to be done this summer.
It is unclear now, say officials of the agencies involved, exactly when that will occur.
***************************************************************** 7 Gibbons blocks move to drop oversight of Yucca Mountain By Doug Abrahms Gannett News Service Saturday August 4th, 2001 WASHINGTON — Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., has blocked action by some Republican House members that would have removed much of Congress’ oversight over the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. A provision in the House energy bill would have pulled Yucca Mountain off budget, giving Congress less oversight over the locale and the $10 billion fund that utilities have collected to build a nuclear waste site. Gibbons said he persuaded the House leadership Wednesday to remove the item from the final bill. “Removing the Nuclear Waste Fund from the strictest, most ardent congressional oversight would prove only to escalate the controversy surrounding the issue,” Gibbons said. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, chairman of the House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, proposed taking the waste dump off budget because he said only $400 million of the fund’s $10 billion was available to be spent. But he accepted the House leadership’s decision to pull the item. “We need access to every penny of the $10 billion if we are going to build and operate a nuclear waste repository in the near future,” Barton said. On another Yucca Mountain front, Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., held a press conference outside the Capitol Thursday to highlight the route taken by the truck carrying a cracked nuclear waste container. The truck traveled from New York to Nevada to drop off nuclear waste for reprocessing at the Nevada Test site. There, the driver found an inch-long crack in one of the containers, and the cargo was sent back. On the heels of a freight train derailment in a tunnel in downtown Baltimore, this marks the second hazardous waste accident in two weeks and highlights the danger of transporting nuclear waste, Reid said. “The truck passed through hundreds of communities across the country,” he said. “Accidents happen, and it’s time we understand the very real and immediate danger of transporting radioactive waste.” © Reno Gazette-Journal ***************************************************************** 8 Rio goes Bush on Kyoto ramifications Financial Review - Aug 4 Bruce Hextall and Lenore Taylor The chief executive of Rio Tinto, Mr Leigh Clifford, has warned that Australia's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol risked damaging the domestic economy and could encourage greater use of nuclear energy. Speaking after the Rio Tinto annual general meeting in London, Mr Clifford said compromises reached at the recent Bonn meeting posed an economic cost on participating countries, particularly those with fossil fuel-intensive economies like Australia. He said one of the consequences of complying with Kyoto would be that "people are going to have to look at nuclear power", suggesting politicians should prefer the lesser evil of coal. Carbon taxes could have a big impact on returns from Rio's core coal businesses. "At the end of the day, when we look at investment decisions we will have to make a judgement on the potential impact of trading mechanisms and carbon taxes and the conclusion you come to is that carbon taxes can have a dramatic impact on a country's economy," Mr Clifford said. The group's energy division, which covers its coal operations, contributed 20 per cent to the record $1.6 billion June-half net profit reported on Thursday night. The Bonn meeting clinched a deal on global greenhouse gas rules and resurrected the Kyoto Protocol after the US President, Mr George Bush, had declared it "dead". Mr Clifford's comments came after Rio Tinto's chairman, Sir Robert Wilson, made a stark warning that the global economy's outlook was deteriorating, leading to subdued demand for two of the group's key products - aluminium and copper. The warning prompted investors to push Rio shares 22¢ lower on Friday to $33.58, but brokers continued to recommend the stock as a hold at least. This was despite Sir Robert saying the group had seen moderate weakness across most of its businesses, including non-ferrous metals and industrials. The exceptions were iron ore, where demand remained firm, and coal, which had been buoyant. Macquarie Equities said that in spite of Sir Robert's comments, Rio Tinto remained its preferred pick in the resources sector. The group's acquisitive growth program had provided the opportunity for cost reductions and synergies which, combined with its quality asset base and growing exposure to the robust iron ore and coal sectors, underpinned Macquarie's preference for the stock. Deutsche Bank said Rio had confirmed its status as a high-quality growth stock, delivering a record result despite deteriorating economic and market conditions. The group remains the broker's preferred cyclical play, based on its house view of a V-shaped US economic recovery in the fourth quarter. ABN Amro kept Rio as a hold but said earnings remained under review because of weak base metal prices and iron ore volumes coming under pressure due to weak Asian steel. Salomon Smith Barney downgraded its full-year earnings estimate slightly to $US1.64 billion ($3.3 billion) for similar reasons. ***************************************************************** 9 Environmentalists Claim LAES Is Unsafe - The St. Petersburg Times. August 3, 2001 By Galina Stolyarova STAFF WRITER Local environmentalists sent an open letter this week to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, as well as to Baltic-region governments, appealing to them not to support additional projects at the Leningrad Nuclear Energy Station, LAES, in Sosnovy Bor. The ecologists from the Greenworld environmental group based in Sosnovy Bor - 80 kilometers to St. Petersburg's west- accused the plant's authorities of financial mismanagement and routine safety violations. Greenworld's letter claimed, among other things, that the "wet" storage facility for spent nuclear fuel at the plant is currently 40 percent over its design capacity. It also claimed that there have been numerous incidents of theft of non-ferrous metals from the plant, including "important functional components for 40 operating safety control devices." Greenworld further alleges that the telephone hotline to Moscow at the plant has been disabled and that drunkenness among workers is widespread. The report quotes the head of the Sosnovy Bor fire brigade as saying that "there have not yet been serious fires at LAES, which is just sheer luck." He said that about 140 fire-safety violations are registered at the plant each year. Because of these problems and a generally lax safety culture at LAES, the report says that the West should cease providing financial support for LAES projects, especially a plan to prolong the lifespan of LAES's four RBMK-1,000 Chernobyl-type reactors. Greenworld's report was primarily written by Sergei Kharitonov, who worked at the plant from 1973 until March 2000, and who is now a Greenworld council member. LAES officials, while confirming some of the information in the Greenworld letter, insist that the plant is safe and that none of the violations are significant. They point out that LAES is inspected annually by the Russian State Nuclear Inspectorate, or Gosatomnadzor, and by official delegations from neighboring countries such as Finland and Norway. "There has never been grounds for a scandal," LAES official Nikolai Yesaulov said in an interview. "Yes, we receive a list of recommendations every time, but these are nothing more than minor reprimands. Generally, the high level of the plant's safety culture has never been questioned." The power of Gosatomnadzor to issue reprimands and follow through on their enforcement has been significantly reduced in recent months as a result of lobbying by the Nuclear Power Ministry, which is seeking to reduce Gosatomnadzor's authority. According to LAES spokesperson Valeriya Nikitina, the plant is scheduled to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Commission in 2002. The IAEC's last inspection of the plant was in 1996. Kim Soderling, project manager of the Finnish Center for Nuclear Safety, or STUK, which monitors LAES, said that his organization will not comment on Greenworld's letter. "STUK doesn't take part in conversations of the Russian Federation's energy policy," he said. Erlend Larsen, senior executive officer of the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, wrote in a statement to The St. Petersburg Times that her organization "does not have a complete picture of the safety" at LAES and that "there are several areas where the safety is not internationally acceptable." "The general Norwegian attitude is that all plants that do not meet an internationally acceptable safety level, including those with RBMK reactors, should be shut down," Larsen wrote. Yesaulov confirmed Greenworld's information that LAES' "wet" storage facility is over capacity, but he insisted it was not a problem. "The measures we have taken to compress spent nuclear fuel are sufficient. All our steps have been approved by Gosatomnadzor," he said. Sergei Bavykin, deputy head of Environmental Safety Department of the Sosnovy Bor municipal administration, agrees that LAES is safe. "I do not have any reasons to doubt the plant's policy or its safety enforcement or to suspect the plant's management of any wrongdoing," he said. "It is not that the ecologists have provided falsified information but rather that their view of the situation is one-sided," Bavykin said. The EBRD is not currently involved in or considering any projects with LAES, said Joachim Jahnke, EBRD vice president responsible for nuclear-safety programs. In 1995, LAES received a 30 million euro ($26.45 million) grant to support several projects intended to improve plant safety. The money was allocated at a 1995 meeting of the Group of Seven leading industrialized countries, with several other countries later contributing, and the fund was administered by the EBRD. "The 1995 donation was a short-term project which has already been accomplished," Jahnke said in telephone interview Wednesday. "We realize the sum was very small in comparison to the amount of work that has to be done, and it was never meant to solve all problems facing the station." "Russia is presently de facto not in line with its obligations under the nuclear-safety agreement with the bank," he said. The EBRD, however, remains committed to a dialogue with Russia to resolve this problem, officials said. Many Russian and international environmental groups have called for Russia to follow the example of Western countries that have been dismantling their nuclear reactors in recent years. Vladimir Slivyak of the Russian environmental group Ecodefense points out that Germany is committed to decomissioning all of its nuclear reactors by 2020. Sweden's nuclear industry will be shut down by 2010. "The absurdity is that while the West is giving up nuclear energy because it is expensive and dangerous, Russia, which finds itself in a dire financial plight, is planning to construct new reactors," Slivyak said. LAES supplies approximately 40 percent of the city's electricity. It employs over 10,000 people in a town of 60,000 and provides up to 80 percent of Sosnovy Bor's revenues. http://www.greenworld.org.ru. [Copyright] copyright The St. Petersburg Times 2001 ***************************************************************** 10 TVA to hear plan for financing construction at nuclear plant sites KnoxNews: News Saturday, Aug 4 By Richard Powelson, News-Sentinel Washington bureau A group involving Chattanooga developer Franklin Haney will present a plan to TVA on Monday about providing perhaps billions in financing to complete work at nuclear plant sites. The Tennessee Valley Authority has been exploring whether to order construction at one or both of its nuclear plant sites in North Alabama. Repairing Unit 1 of its Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, idled since 1985, would cost an estimated $1.3 billion, while completing two partially built reactors at its Bellefonte Nuclear Plant might cost about $2.5 billion, the agency has said. TVA vice president Jack Bailey has been contacted about the Haney proposal and expects to hear the details Monday at TVA's Chattanooga office, spokesman John Moulton said. Haney has retained the Baker Donelson law firm, with offices in several cities, including Knoxville, Chattanooga and Memphis, to help with the proposal, Moulton said. Also, former TVA Chairman Craven Crowell was identified Friday by The Lebanon Democrat newspaper as a consultant to the financing project. Crowell, who left TVA in April, did not return a call for comment. But the Associated Press quoted him as saying he had advised the financing proponents about idle nuclear plants at TVA and other parts of the country, including the Northwest. "But I am not involved now," Crowell told AP. He said he is prohibited from lobbying TVA directly and wanted to sever his relationship before Haney and Donelson met with TVA. "There was not much else I could do," he said. Haney is a longtime major donor to the Democratic Party. Baker Donelson's partners include Lewis Donelson, a prominent Republican and former state commissioner of finance and administration. Former U.S. Sen. Howard Baker Jr., a Tennessee Republican, was a partner until his recent appointment as U.S. ambassador to Japan. TVA has been studying options to meet future needs. Nuclear power provided 31 percent of generation last year. TVA's coal-fired generation is facing federal orders for expensive emissions controls, which TVA is contesting in court. "We'll certainly evaluate any proposal that makes good business sense for us," Moulton said. Some members of Congress already have been briefed on part of the plan. U.S. Rep. Bob Clement of Nashville, a former TVA board member, said he found it "an interesting concept." He said he has long been concerned about TVA's debt of about $25 billion and the large annual interest payments. "If there are any efforts on TVA's part to bring Browns Ferry Unit 1 or something of that magnitude on line, they must consider alternative financing mechanisms," Clement said. Unit 1 of Browns Ferry was completed in 1974 but shut down in 1985 over management and safety concerns. The agency's other nuclear units were shut down for similar reasons, but the agency made improvements that allowed restarting two units of its Sequoyah plant near Chattanooga and two of the three units at the Browns Ferry site. Workers also completed one unit of the Watts Bar plant near Spring City. Another option for Bellefonte that TVA has considered is building a coal gasification power plant on the site. No cost estimate was available Friday. TVA plans to make a decision no earlier than next year on whether Browns Ferry Unit 1 should be restarted, Moulton said. Clement said he agrees that TVA needs to plan for future power needs. "They need to ensure a reliable flow of electricity with the cheapest possible rates for consumers in Tennessee and other parts of the valley region. It is hard to keep everything in balance, and that's why an innovative idea such as this should be examined very closely." On Friday, TVA received a conceptual design for the financing from the parties involved, but will not provide a copy of it to the public at this point in the review process, Moulton said. He said the agency's position likely would be that TVA continue ownership of Browns Ferry Unit 1. "It's our plant," Moulton said. "We don't want somebody else owning and operating it." TVA officials will study whether Haney's financing plan is cheaper than money they could borrow themselves, he said. Richard Powelson may be reached at 202-408-2727 or PowelsonR@shns.com. Copyright 2001 The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 11 USEC denies plans to sell plant - By Joe Walker The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Saturday, August 04, 2001 The company's president met with Exelon Nuclear CEO the day after workers rejected a contract offer, prompting rumors. By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650 USEC says rumors that it wants to sell its Paducah uranium enrichment operation to Exelon Nuclear, part owner of Three Mile Island reactor, are unfounded. The rumors swirled Friday as USEC President and Chief Executive Officer William Timbers toured the Paducah plant with Oliver Kingsley Jr., Exelon president and chief nuclear officer. Their visit came a day after the plant energy workers union resoundingly rejected a USEC contract offer. Charles Yulish, USEC communications vice president, said the Kingsley visit merely was one of about 100 tours the plant hosts yearly to help nuclear utility customers, legislative and community leaders and other VIPs better understand the process of enriching uranium. "Oliver Kingsley visited the plant today as hosted by Nick," Yulish said Friday. "He is one of the most brilliant nuclear power people in the world today. He's never been to a plant that supplies all the enriched fuel in the United States. It was suggested that he go, and he took us up on it." Exelon, which operates 10 nuclear stations and 17 reactors with a capacity of 17,000 megawatts, is among four large electricity firms lobbying the Bush administration to allow an agent from their industry to buy uranium taken from Russian nuclear warheads, according to Nuclear Fuel magazine. USEC, now the sole buyer for the uranium, which it resells to utilities, wants to remain sole agent and lower Russian prices. Union leaders say USEC's wanting to include success of the Russian deal in language for a new, five-year contract was a key reason why virtually all 670 voting workers rejected the proposal Thursday night. The offer called for the contract to expire after a year if USEC did not achieve any of three goals — remaining as sole agent, lowering prices and getting approval to buy commercial Russian uranium along with the warhead material. Yulish said the trip was not an attempt by Timbers to sway Kingsley about who should be agent for the uranium. Kingsley also is chairman of the management committee of AmerGen Energy Co., a partnership between Exelon and British Energy, which owns and operates nuclear power plants. Among AmerGen's holdings is Three Mile Island Unit 1, a nuclear plant in Middletown, Pa., where a highly publicized nuclear accident took place in 1979. In November 1997, Kingsley joined Unicom, the parent firm of Commonwealth Edison, as president and chief nuclear officer of its Nuclear Generation Group, then the largest nuclear program in the United States. Before that, he was head of nuclear generation for the Tennessee Valley Authority. ***************************************************************** 12 USEC: Russian deal key The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Sunday, August 05, 2001 Union, industry oppose price cut, sole agent issues By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650 As about 700 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant union members keep working amid strike talk, their employer, USEC Inc., is lobbying strongly in the nation's capital to control the price and flow of $8 billion in Russian uranium, equivalent to 25,000 nuclear weapons. USEC wants to remain sole agent for the uranium, which it resells to U.S. nuclear power plants. It also wants to secure better prices and get government approval to buy Russian commercial uranium, aside from the material taken from dismantled warheads. Some nuclear power firms — identified by Nuclear Fuel magazine as Duke Power, Southern Co., Entergy and Exelon Nuclear — are lobbying to bypass USEC by adding an agent from their industry, whose 100 plants use the uranium to produce 20 percent of the nation's electricity. Oliver Kingsley, Exelon's president and chief nuclear officer, visited the Paducah plant Friday with USEC President and Chief Executive Officer William Timbers. USEC described the visit as one of many by its customers and not to try to sway Kingsley's views about the Russian deal. Condoleeza Rice, the president's national security adviser, is reviewing the Russian matter, including USEC's tentative agreement with that country for better prices. Some say a decision may be imminent. Nuclear Fuel has reported that although the White House is considering having another agent, many analysts think it could delay a decision until next year, even after the November 2002 elections. USEC is hoping for an answer by the end of the year, when its old, five-year contract with Russia expires. The firm says Russia agreed in May 2000 to terms for better prices. On Thursday, the plant's energy workers union overwhelmingly rejected USEC's proposed contract, which would have ended after a year if any one of three goals related to Russian uranium purchases failed. The two sides plan to resume bargaining Wednesday, but union leaders say that unless USEC takes the Russian issue off the table, there could be a strike at any time. Not only has the issue spurred contentious bargaining, it is vital for the future of the plant, its 1,500 jobs and the spinoff revenue that has long brought economic vitality to the area. Broader still, U.S. nuclear fuel production is at stake because the Paducah plant is the only one in the nation that enriches uranium. The 325-employee Honeywell plant in Metropolis, Ill., is the only plant in the country that makes raw product for USEC. Some experts — notably Thomas Neff, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology nuclear researcher credited with designing the Russian deal — say USEC's proposed new prices for Russian uranium could give it a profit markup of 50 percent or more. Neff says that and other factors could lead to a monopoly and drive up the price of electricity in the nation. USEC Senior Vice President Philip Sewell says Neff is misguided and inaccurate. Despite the heavy consequences of USEC's nuclear disarmament role, the underlying economics are complex and easily misunderstood, he said. "Obviously, if it's important to USEC business, it's important to that plant because that's where our business lies right now," he said. "So it's a significant issue to the community." In a 20-year deal, USEC is buying about half its uranium needs from Russia at prices well below what it costs the Paducah plant to produce the other half. Sewell said "blending" the two costs holds USEC expenses down and extends the life of the plant, whose technology is outdated and burns as much electricity as a major city. He gave these views regarding another agent: If another agent buys more Russian uranium than USEC is buying now, the added supply — in a market with stagnant demand for at least 10 years — will force prices down, cut USEC's profits and hurt the plant. Should a USEC customer buy from a new agent, USEC will lose that market share, creating "a double whammy." If another agent takes part of USEC's Russian supply, it will upset the Russian-Paducah cost mix, also hurting the plant. Boosting plant production won't help because it would mean much higher power costs. Also, the added supply would force market prices down, resulting in a "triple whammy." Not everyone agrees with USEC logic. Exclusive control over Russian and domestic uranium, combined with a successful trade action against foreign nuclear fuel suppliers, "would give USEC monopoly power over the U.S. nuclear fuel supply and drive up electricity prices in the United States," Neff wrote in the June issue of Arms Control Today magazine. USEC wants permission from the Commerce Department to buy newly produced Russian commercial uranium, also at low prices. "If it does so, the more likely outcome is the shutdown of Paducah, making the nation largely dependent on Russian supply for its nuclear power plants," Neff wrote. Comparing USEC to a "middleman," Neff's article said having another agent can cut the cost to utilities, and ultimately consumers, by 90 percent. It would create competition and give the U.S. government more options in dealing with USEC and Russia, he wrote. Another option is providing federal subsidies to USEC — perhaps $200 million to $300 million annually for the roughly 12 years remaining in the Russian deal — in return for USEC's giving Russia fairer prices, withdrawing the trade action and promising to keep the Paducah plant running, Neff wrote. In the July-August issue of Arms Control Today, Sewell responded to Neff's "inaccuracies and distortions," saying USEC is not a monopoly because it doesn't have enough uranium to supply all U.S. nuclear power plants. The rest must come from foreign suppliers, he said. Sewell wrote that the actual profit margin from the Russian uranium "is far, far lower" than the 50 percent markup claimed by Neff, whose figures don't account for other costs, including having a large uranium inventory in case of Russian shipment interruptions, four of which have occurred in the last seven years. Union leaders say they failed to get USEC to commit to running the plant at a specified production level, even if the union supported the Russian initiatives. That is one reason workers vigorously oppose including the Russian issue in the contract, said David Fuller, president of Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers Local 5-550. Last year, USEC denied union claims that it wanted to close the plant and become solely a broker of uranium. "Instead of a commitment to the community and union," Fuller said, "we have a situation set up where the workers and the community are going to take it on the chin by another USEC scheme." USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle took issue with Fuller. "Any statement that USEC refused to promise certain production levels is not true," she said. "In fact, USEC offered and was prepared to commit to certain production levels as part of an overall agreement to support implementation of a new marked-based Russian contract and USEC's role as sole executive agent." In explaining why the Russian deal means plant jobs, Stuckle likened it to a government defense contract. "If the contract is reduced, we will have fewer resources to pass on to our employees," she said. "On the other hand, if we have a larger contract, we will have more resources to pass on." ***************************************************************** 13 Nuclear waste creates storm in France By Clare Kittredge, Globe Correspondent, 8/5/2001 CARENTAN, France - When the Chernobyl catastrophe spewed a radioactive plume across Europe in 1986, the pro-nuclear French government said, in so many words, that the toxic cloud had neatly swerved around France. Now, 15 years later, even in France, the days of public trust in all things nuclear are gone, French environmentalists are saying as they protest foreign nuclear waste shipments into France. ''There's been an evolution in French thinking,'' Jean-Luc Verret, regional secretary for lower Normandy's Green Party, said last week as a train bearing nine 110-ton casks of spent fuel elements approached Carentan, an upper Normandy town not far from the Allied landing sites. ''They pretended Chernobyl didn't affect France - they can't do that any more,'' Verret said. Indeed, even here near a giant commercial radioactive waste plant at La Hague, on a wind-swept tip of Normandy, wisps of doubt about nuclear safety have surfaced in recent years. On Thursday, French environmentalists delayed a rail convoy of German nuclear waste bound for the plant at La Hague. Rail shipments of waste to the plant resumed this spring after a three-year hiatus caused by the discovery of widespread radioactive contamination of rail cars. The delays, caused by Greenpeace and Green activists, followed charges by a train workers' union that there is a ''lack of transparency'' and too little public information about spent nuclear fuel rail transports to La Hague. In addition, another environmental group, Manche Nature, has petitioned a Cherbourg judge to stop foreign nuclear waste shipments to the vast La Hague plant. The argument was that they are illegal. French law forbids storing foreign waste, Didier Anger, representative for the Greens, said last week. Also turning up the heat last week was an independent radiation testing laboratory in nearby Caen. The lab said a radiation leak in May from the plant at La Hague had been much worse than the company had acknowledged. A government radiation monitoring agency, the Nuclear Protection and Surveillance Institute, confirmed that its instruments had detected the leak in Alencon, more than 60 miles away. And the independent testing lab, the Western Radioactivity Verification Association, said health studies based on the company's own figures should be revised. ''Are we in the presence of chronically poor calibration? That would mean a good part of the studies done around the plant would be cast into doubt since they were based on the company's figures,'' said Pierre Barbey, the lab's scientific adviser. Environmentalists pay much attention to La Hague because France, which relies on reactors for 80 percent of its energy, has cast itself as a global leader in nuclear power and waste. In addition, money is involved from abroad, though figures are not forthcoming. La Hague is the world's largest commercial facility to separate plutonium and uranium from spent nuclear fuel. And as world interest in nuclear waste disposal mounts, France is exporting its expertise. The United States and France, for example, have agreed to do joint research on nuclear waste, among other issues. But there are problems close to home. Last week, a group of Norman mothers said a new leukemia study adds to their worries about the health effects of the Cogema nuclear waste plant's radioactive discharges on their children. One group, called Les Meres en Colere (The Angry Mothers), was formed in 1997 when a noted epidemiologist suggested a link between a slight rise in leukemia cases in children playing on local beaches and eating local fish and shellfish near La Hague. Published on Jan. 11, 1997 in the British Medical Journal, the study, by Jean-Francois Viel, epidemiologist at the University of Besancon in eastern France, far from La Hague, suggested a connection between the reprocessing facility's radioactive emissions and the ailment in local children. Viel's was the first case-control study conducted around a nuclear installation in France. It provoked furious controversy across France, and Viel was widely vilified. But this summer, French newspapers declared Viel, whose nickname became the ''nuclear pariah,'' vindicated when a more recent government study, published in the British Medical Association's Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, confirmed Viel's finding of a leukemia cluster near La Hague. The operator of La Hague, a government-subsidized corporation called Cogema, says its activities are safe and carefully monitored. In a statement, the company acknowledged concern but said, ''In the past 20 years, scientifically founded studies indicate no link between operations at the Cogema-La Hague site and the probability of occurence of infantile leukemia.'' The Angry Mothers spokeswoman, Nathalie Bonnemains-Geismar doesn't buy it. She says her concerns are backed by ''the population's growing anxiety about the health effects of all reprocessing activities at La Hague and its liquid and gaseous radioactive releases.'' On Thursday, as the nuclear waste train approached Carentan, it stopped for a Greenpeace activist who had barred its way by straddling one of the train rails rail, his hands stuck inside a steel tube nestled under the rail. ''Reprocessing is an economic and environmental aberration,'' declared a Cherbourg shipyard worker, Philippe Rousselet, as police pried him loose. The train moved on as a police helicopter hovered overhead. This story ran on page A29 of the Boston Globe on 8/5/2001. © Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company. ***************************************************************** 14 German nuclear waste reaches French plant - 8/3/2001 - ENN.com Friday, August 03, 2001 By Reuters ROUEN, France — The biggest-ever shipment of spent German nuclear fuel arrived at a processing plant in France Thursday, only slightly delayed by environmental protests, officials said. A spokeswoman for the French nuclear processing agency Cogema said the convoy containing some 100 spent fuel rods reached the La Hague plant near Cherbourg at around 1 p.m. (7 a.m. EDT), some two hours behind schedule. Greenpeace and Green Party activists blocked the nuclear rail shipment as it headed across northern France by chaining themselves to the tracks on at least two occasions. Police quickly cut them free, allowing the train to pass. On Wednesday evening, five activists chained themselves to the tracks at the Bischeim train station, close to France's border with Germany, but were swiftly moved on. The original shipment from Germany comprised 12 wagons, but three were uncoupled in France and taken to the port of Dunkerque, where they will be loaded onto a ship and taken to a reprocessing plant in the British town of Sellafield. The Cogema spokeswoman said the nine-wagon shipment for La Hague was larger than normal because a convoy planned for last month was canceled and subsequently hitched on to the August batch. "It is the largest shipment of its kind, but safety has never been put in jeopardy," she said, adding that it would take "several years" to reprocess the waste before it could be returned to Germany. French nuclear regulators ASN and OPRI said in a joint statement that tests carried out on the train had shown radiation levels were below legal limits and had been safe. The transport of German nuclear waste for reprocessing abroad started again in April after a three-year interruption. The restart followed the so-called Atom Consensus agreed between the German federal government and the local power industry on the abandonment of nuclear energy by 2020. As part of the deal, the reprocessing of fuel rods abroad will be allowed until 2005. In return, Germany has agreed to take back the reprocessed waste. Copyright 2001, Reuters ***************************************************************** 15 Baltimore tunnel fire exposed the dangers of nuclear-waste transportation [The Roanoke Times] August 05, 2001 What if the burning train had been carrying atomic waste ... Baltimore tunnel fire exposed the dangers of nuclear-waste transportation By KEVIN KAMPS HERE'S A scary thought: What if the train that burned in a recent Baltimore rail-tunnel fire had been carrying nuclear waste? It's not that far-fetched. According to Energy Department maps that trace national rail routes for transporting nuclear waste to a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., a train carrying spent fuel rods from a nuclear power plant near Maryland's Chesapeake Bay could pass right through the same tunnel. If a train carrying atomic waste were to catch fire, the only thing standing between people and deadly radiation would be the nuclear waste transport casks, which could leak in a severe accident, releasing radiation. Spent nuclear fuel, even decades after removal from the reactor, delivers a lethal dose of radiation in just a few minutes. The July 18 inferno in Baltimore's Howard Street train tunnel reached temperatures as high as 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit, according to local authorities. The blaze, apparently fed by flammable chemicals in the train cargo, burned out of control all day long, overnight and well into the next day. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission calls for high-level nuclear waste containers to be able to withstand a 1,475-degree fire for 30 minutes. Clearly, this real-life accident in Baltimore burned longer and hotter than anything envisioned by the NRC. These outdated criteria date back to 1947 and haven't been updated since, despite combustibles on the roads and rails today that burn at much higher temperatures. That needs to change. By any reckoning, the damage from a tunnel fire involving nuclear waste could be enormous. According to experts like Marvin Resnikoff, a nuclear physicist with Radioactive Waste Management Associates in New York City, a severe high-level radioactive waste transport accident releasing radiation in an urban area could cause scores of latent cancer fatalities and cost tens of billions of dollars to clean up. Resnikoff used the Energy Department's own computer models to arrive at these figures. The Baltimore Sun quoted a firefighter as saying all he could see inside the tunnel was the glowing metal of train tanker cars. He described it as "a deep orange, like a horseshoe just pulled out of the oven." The big question is, could high-level atomic waste containers survive such severe accident conditions? If not, we could be looking at our own Chernobyl catastrophe - on wheels. KEVIN KAMPS is nuclear-waste specialist with the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington, D.C. GLOBAL BEAT SYNDICATE ED FRESKA / LOS ANGELES TIMES SYNDICATE ***************************************************************** 16 Rally against Devonport Dock's nuclear waste plans BBC Online - Devon - News - August 4th 2001 Campaigners protest over nuclear waste Protesters at the rally against DML's proposals Residents fighting proposals to increase levels of nuclear waste emissions into the River Tamar have today staged a rally in Plymouth. The campaigners are against plans by Devonport Dockyard managers, DML, to increase the discharges of radioactive tritium by 500%. [police cordon at DML] Protesters marched to DML - where they were met by a cordon of police They held the rally at Devonport Park this afternoon, before walking to DML's base at Devonport. It comes exactly a month after around 150 protesters marched across the Tamar Bridge to Devonport, to highlight their concerns. They argue the discharges could be environmentally damaging, and there are also fears over the potential dangers. Today's event was being led by campaigner, Ian Avent, who has set up a campaign group to fight DML's plans. [submarine] A submarine alongside at Devonport The company, though, argues that the increase in discharges is needed, so that the port can refit nuclear submarines. The application has been made to the Environment Agency, which has completed a public consultation exercise on ths issue and is now considering the matter. Already, health officals have said that the plans would pose little threat to public health - but campaigners argue that caution should be exercised. ***************************************************************** 17 Bush restates nuclear support Chattanooga Times Free Press http://www.timesfreepress.com August 4, 2001 By Andy Sher Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- President Bush reaffirmed his commitment to revitalizing the nuclear power industry Friday and said he sees a place for the Tennessee Valley Authority in the effort. "We've ev-olved way beyond the days of Three Mile Island in terms of technology," President Bush said. "And we've got to incorporate nuclear energy into our mix (of energy options). And TVA can play a useful role for that." The government-owned electric utility operates nuclear plants at four sites in Tennessee and Alabama, including the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant near Chattanooga. The agency also is looking at ways to get several mothballed reactors completed and operational. President Bush had made nuclear power a key component in his comprehensive energy proposals. He said Friday that the "big issue" regarding nuclear power "is the storage of nuclear waste." He noted that Congress once passed a bill "that would have cranked up the site out in Nevada. It was vetoed by the president (Bill Clinton). We are now in the process of going through the studies to make sure that it's a safe site." The president's comments came during a roundtable discussion in the White House with regional newspaper reporters from several states, including Tennessee. President Bush said he sees a continuing role for TVA. He also said he sees Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 68-year-old New Deal-era TVA as "a business." Moreover, the president said, he expects that philosophy to be reflected in the actions of TVA board member Glenn McCullough of Mississippi, whom the president recently named agency chairman, and Knoxville businessman Bill Baxter, whom the president recently announced he will nominate to the three-member board. "The purpose of naming the new chairman and the man from Tennessee is to bring business practices to the TVA," President Bush said. "It's a business. It's not a government entity. It's couched as a government entity, but it's a business, and it needs to be run as a business. It needs to be competitive. It needs to bring energy and reasonable prices to the people, but it's got to be run like a business." Also Friday, the president touted the progress he said the administration has made on several fronts during its first half year in office. "The tax relief was timely because the economy is slow and hurting in certain parts of the country," he said of the $1.35 billion tax cut he pushed through Congress. The president praised U.S. Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., for the Thursday night passage of an HMO reform bill in the House. The bill is headed to a House-Senate conference committee. On other matters, the president said progress is being made on ironing out differences in education legislation passed by the House and Senate. He also suggested he might attempt to revisit the issue of school vouchers at a later time. President Bush also said he is enjoying his job. "All in all, I'm having the time of my life," the president said. "My family is doing well." E-mail Andy Sher at asher@timesfreepress.com ***************************************************************** 18 Haney eyes nuclear reactor lease August 4, 2001 By Bob Gary Jr. Staff Writer © Chattanooga Times Free Press Chattanooga developer Franklin Haney will propose Monday to finance a restart of the Tennessee Valley Authority's long-dormant Unit 1 reactor at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant near Athens, Ala. Mr. Haney's investor group, Nuclear Leasing, plans to issue bonds for $1.3 billion, the approximate cost of restarting Unit 1. The group believes the plant could be operational within five years. Nuclear Leasing would lease Unit 1 from TVA, then lease it back to the utility. TVA would maintain ownership of the plant, the nuclear power produced and the cash flow generated by the production of that power. Lewis Donelson, of the Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell law firm, which represents Mr. Haney, said now is the ideal time for TVA to embrace a private-sector partner. He said reactivation of Unit 1 is central to President Bush's national energy policy. The president has called for a revival of nuclear energy. Glenn McCullough, TVA chairman, and board member Skila Harris both have said recently that nuclear power has a chance to play a larger role in the utility's future. "What we're proposing is for Browns Ferry," Mr. Donelson said. "It's the best place to start." Stephen Smith, executive director of the Knoxville-based Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, said he is concerned with the notion of investors led by Mr. Haney financing a nuclear reactor restart at Browns Ferry. "If Mr. Haney is going to put the money forward and there's no rate-payer risk, obviously there's very little anyone can do to control how an individual can spend his money," Mr. Smith said. Members of the TVA Congressional Caucus have been briefed on the plan in recent days. One of them, U.S. Rep. Bob Clement, D-Tenn., called Mr. Haney's plan "innovative." "Debt load is a large burden on TVA," said Rep. Clement, a former TVA board member. "If there are any efforts on TVA's part to bring Browns Ferry Unit 1 or something of that magnitude on line, they must consider alternative financing." Mr. Haney said his proposal would allow the utility to begin reducing its $26 billion debt. The utility's debt limit, $30 billion, would not be affected by its obligation to repay Nuclear Leasing, he added. "I know nothing of nuclear power, only financing," Mr. Haney said Friday during an interview with the Chattanooga Times Free Press. He said he will make a commission from the bond sale, but he declined to speculate on an amount. "We've designed a system by which TVA can (eventually) pay off its debt and have billions left over," Mr. Haney said. Mr. Donelson said the Browns Ferry plan would work just as well at TVA's twin-reactor Bellefonte Nuclear Plant in Hollywood, Ala. The utility has invested $4.6 billion in construction there, which began in 1974 but stopped in 1988 because TVA's power demand no longer justified the construction costs. Mr. Haney will pitch his plan at a Chattanooga meeting with Jack Bailey, a TVA vice president, and other members of the special projects task force. Mr. Bailey will make a recommendation to the agency's board of directors. "I've been asked to keep an open mind to proposals like this, evaluate them fairly and determine whether they're good for TVA, good for customers and the right kind of deal to put forward," Mr. Bailey said. He added that the TVA board's decision whether to restart Browns Ferry's Unit 1 at all would be a separate one, based on the region's long-term energy needs, total cost, operational risk and environmental concerns. Joe Conner, a Baker Donelson attorney, said the Browns Ferry plan makes sense economically. "Market conditions are better now than they've ever been," he said. "This is a screaming deal at $1.3 billion." Mr. Smith of the Southern Alliance said, "This sounds like some sort of elaborate scheme to give people the impression that (TVA's) not spending any money but getting back into the nuclear construction business. It should be of great concern to everybody in the Tennessee Valley." Roger Hannah, a spokesman for the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said that agency has no standing to quibble with TVA over financing at Browns Ferry or anywhere else. "Financial considerations only concern the NRC in two respects," he said. "One is that we have to make sure the utility has the financial wherewithal to operate safely. That question wouldn't arise with TVA. Second is decommissioning cost. When a plant is closed or shut down, there has to be money set aside to put the plant in safe condition. "The bottom line is that if TVA retains ownership and the operating license, they'd be tasked with maintaining safety. They'd have to go through the same kinds of inspections and questions they did with the other two (Browns Ferry) units." In 1985, when TVA couldn't meet new regulatory changes stemming from the 1979 nuclear accident at Three Mile Island, it shut down each of the three reactors at Browns Ferry. TVA successfully reactivated Units 2 and 3, but Unit 1 has remained idle. The engineering firm of Stone & Webster maintains the two on-line reactors at Browns Ferry and has proposed a study on the idled reactor. U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., and a former chairman of the TVA Congressional Caucus said that in considering Mr. Haney's proposal the utility's board must consider how best to "maintain available and affordable electricity by not increasing rates, continue to improve efficiency by lowering overhead and reducing costs and prepare for competition because the industry's future is uncertain." But U.S. Rep. Bud Cramer, D-Ala., was less reserved. "I'm very excited about the possibility of TVA restarting Browns Ferry Unit 1," said Rep. Cramer, whose district includes the nuclear plant. "It's a gem of a plant, and bringing it back online can add an additional 1,250 megawatts to TVA's electric grid. This is exactly what TVA needs to make sure it will continue to be able to meet the valley's future energy needs." Rep. Clement said, "TVA needs to continue to work hard to reduce its debt, but at the same time ensure a reliable flow of electricity with the cheapest possible rates for consumers in Tennessee and other parts of the region. It's hard to keep everything in balance, and that's why an innovative idea such as this should be examined very closely." E-mail Bob Gary Jr. at bgary@timesfreepress.com ***************************************************************** 19 New suit at Stark dump Published Saturday, August 4, 2001, in the Akron Beacon Journal. Neighbors file $30 million wrongful-death suit against former owners, rubber shops BY Beacon Journal staff writer CANTON: Neighbors and former residents living near a contaminated site in northern Stark County filed a $30 million wrongful-death lawsuit yesterday against the former landfill's operators and the Akron rubber companies that dumped there. The families contend that toxic and radioactive waste dumped at the 30-acre Industrial Excess Landfill in Uniontown poisoned the air and well water. That contamination led to the cancer death of Thomas G. Boldt and caused cancer in plaintiffs Darleen Lansing and Jamie Davis. The landfill off Cleveland Avenue Northwest opened in the mid-1960s. Before its closure in 1980, the dump received 1 million gallons of toxic waste from several rubber companies and an estimated 750,000 tons of trash. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued a revised $13 million cleanup plan for the dump. Defendants in the suit, which was filed in Stark County Common Pleas Court, include Firestone Tire &Rubber Co., Bridgestone/Firestone Inc., Goodyear Tire &Rubber Co. and B.F. Goodrich Co. The lawsuit, initially filed in 1999, was dismissed by the court last summer with the option of refiling. The plaintiff's attorney, Stanley P. Aronson, said the suit was dismissed because much of the evidence was dependent on investigations by the EPA and other agencies that either were incomplete or unavailable. In 1984, the dump was designated for cleanup under the Superfund program. Explosive levels of methane gas forced the evacuation of 10 homes and two businesses in 1989. Subsequent EPA findings, such as the determination that radiation is not a problem at the site, have been contested by neighbors, including the Concerned Citizens of Lake Township. John Higgins can be reached at 330-478-6000 (Ext. 12) or 1-800-478-5445 or ***************************************************************** 20 How Bill put us all at nuclear risk ? and saved us too © 2001 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd by Clayton Hirst 05 August 2001 In one fell swoop, Bill Gates has both put the world at risk of nuclear attack and saved it. That is the extraordinary claim of Bruce Blair, president of the Center for Defense Information, a US non-profit military organisation. What is even more startling is that the substance of his claims is not disputed by Mr Gates's Microsoft or the US government, only the interpretation. The story centres on a tiny bug in one of Microsoft's server software packages. Russian scientists at the Kurchatov Institute, a research organisation in Moscow, last year discovered when running the package that some files used for tracking bomb-grade nuclear material vanished from sight. The software was donated to the Russians by the US Los Alamos Laboratory. On discovering the fault, says Mr Blair, the Russian scientists first suspected that the Americans had secretly installed a "Trojan horse" virus on the system to destabilise Russian security. But the paranoia soon subsided and the Russians contacted the authorities in the US, which is also using the same software to track its nuclear materials, to warn of the problem. Mr Blair claims, in an article in The Washington Post, that the "fatal flaw" could have led to enough material to make thousands of nuclear weapons disappearing on to the black market. He also says that the Russians were much more diligent record-keepers than the Americans, who didn't have a paper back-up of their files. Sorting out the problem, he says, is a "huge task that could cost more than $1bn and still might not detect the diversion of some material, should it have occurred". In the end, of course, it didn't happen, and for a brief moment, before President George Bush came to power, the Americans and the Russians were the best of pals, happy to have averted a nuclear threat. "The lesson is that nuclear co-operation is a two-way street, is paying off and deserves continuing support," says Mr Blair. Microsoft and the US authorities do not deny that the bug existed. What they do dispute is Mr Blair's claims that it posed a real threat to security. But a spokeswoman for Microsoft says: "We take national security very seriously". She also confirmed that the bug in the software did result in "data loss". She added, rather tersely: "It's a non-story because it has been fixed." On hearing of the fault, Microsoft did indeed offer to fix the problem. But the Russian institute decided to go one better by upgrading to a newer version. But a second bug was discovered in the spanking new package. "The [second] bug led to documentation problems," said the Microsoft spokeswoman, without being able to explain what such a fault is. But she insisted that it wasn't as serious as the first. Phew, what a relief. Also from the News section Have you heard? Internet rumours are costing big business millions Yahoo! opts for a Yell on its portal instead of a Scoot C&W shuts e-business advice arm Sale talks are off but Future Network still looking at its options Late appearance by Code Red internet 'worm' leaves most websites unscathed ***************************************************************** 21 Pantex workers begin filing benefit forms 08/05/01 Amarillo Globe-News: Local News: By Jim McBride Workers from Pantex and other nuclear weapons factories have begun submitting compensation claims for radiation-related cancers and other illnesses linked to atomic weapons programs.
A new federal law now provides $150,000 in lump-sum compensation and related medical expenses to weapons workers. The law covers eligible workers who developed cancer or became seriously ill from exposure to radiation, beryllium or silica.
At least five Pantex workers have been diagnosed with chronic beryllium disease, a sometimes fatal scarring of the lungs.
Roberta Mosier, deputy director for the Labor Department's division of energy employees occupational illness compensation, said employees have logged more than 2,000 claims already and others are arriving daily.
Claimants generally can use one of two Labor Department forms to seek compensation: an EE-1 or EE-2.
"EE-1 is the worker form. EE-2 is the survivor form," Mosier said. "Either one of those is sufficient to begin the process."
To speed up processing, workers seeking compensation should submit a complete claims package with a full employment history and medical evidence supporting their claim, Mosier said. In cancer cases, the government may complete a radiation dose reconstruction that estimates the radiation dose a worker was exposed to.
Frank George, president of Pantex's Metal Trades Council, said the new law doesn't meet the intent of Congress and that some workers are questioning whether dose reconstruction will be adequate.
"There is an issue of internal exposures vs. external exposures to the body," he said. "Secondly, how accurate is the dose reconstruction going to be in the absence of records. ... In the absence of data, what are they going to do, guess as to how much you were exposed to?"
Larry Elliott of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health said a draft regulation covering the dose reconstruction process will be released for public comment this month.
The government will use different types of data to reconstruct a worker's dose, such as research studies, site information, work history records and worker anecdotes, Elliott said.
"We will rely on interviews with the claimants to assist us in identifying records, identifying information, identifying accidents or incidents that they were involved in where they think they had an exposure they think was not documented," Elliott said.
The Labor Department will review an employee's dose reconstruction report before determining eligibility.
"There is an interactive radio-epidemiological program that we will use to calculate whether the cancer was at least as likely as not caused by exposure to the radiation," Mosier said.
Mosier said the Labor Department estimates that many claims will take three to six months, but waiting for dose reconstruction information from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health could delay processing.
The new law also provides payments to a worker's survivors in some cases, Mosier said.
A worker's children who suffer a disability and are incapable of self-support are eligible under some circumstances.
"The spouse and the children are the primary ones, but if there is no spouse and there are no children, then people like siblings, parents and grandparents also are eligible, but there is a dependency requirement for those categories," Mosier said.
"A survivor is determined as of the date of the employee's death," Mosier said. "It's people who at the date of death were either married to the employee or were a child of the employee under the age of 18, or a child of the employee between the ages of 18 and 23 and enrolled in a full-time course of study."
2001 Amarillo Globe-News ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Gephardt Remarks on Trans-Atlantic Relations U.S. Newswire 2 Aug 11:21 Text of Gephardt Remarks at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace To: National and International desks Contact: Erik Smith or Kori Bernards, 202-225-0100, both of the Office of House Democratic Leader Richard A. Gephardt; http://democraticleader.house.gov/ WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is the text of remarks by House Democratic Leader Richard A. Gephardt as prepared for delivery today at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on "The Future of Trans-Atlantic Relations: Collaboration or Confrontation?": "Last month I was privileged to lead a Congressional delegation to four key European capitals: London, Berlin, Brussels and Moscow. My colleagues and I met with leaders in each nation and discussed fundamental issues including nuclear arms control, strategic defense, and environmental protection. We talked about what these issues mean not just to the United States and Europe, but to the entire world. "One of our stops along the way was the Carnegie Center in Moscow. We had an excellent exchange of views with many of your Russian colleagues, and I thought it would be appropriate to provide an assessment of our trip at the Carnegie Endowment here in Washington. First, let me thank you for having me here today, and for all the work you do around the globe. "This is an important moment for America in the world. We face two choices in foreign affairs in this century. We can go it alone in the isolationist tradition of America in the 1920s, when we were disengaged and disinterested in affairs abroad. Or we can continue our successful engagement with Europe and the world, forming new partnerships rooted in the need and desire for mutual security, grounded on the demands and opportunities of a new era. "The reason for our trip was to strengthen America's role in trans-Atlantic and global affairs, and to have a productive dialogue with our allies and partners on the biggest issues of our times. It was a highly informative trip in many ways. We found a pressing desire for American engagement in the world and for collaboration and dialogue with our European partners. "In Brussels, NATO Secretary General George Robertson said that our allies wanted us to continue as a leader of NATO and help bring stability to the Balkans. "In Berlin, Chancellor Schroeder said it was important for America to have a seat at the table on global warming and other key environmental issues. "In Moscow, Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said his government wanted to work with us on a strategic partnership anchored in real collaboration and dialogue, animated by a framework suited to a new century. "And finally in London, Prime Minister Blair urged America to stay involved in Europe in order to promote regional stability and advance our common, democratic values. "In short, we heard from allies and former adversaries that the U.S. needs to be engaged, find ways to collaborate, and work together to address common threats and enhance our collective future. "Europeans are worried that America is on the sidelines. They think the Bush administration has embraced go-it-alone policies that undermine international security, hurt our economic and environmental interests, and prevent us from seizing a historic opportunity for engagement with Russia. This was a chilling message. Europeans told us they were especially concerned about our flat-out rejection of the Kyoto global warming treaty, and our wavering commitment to NATO operations in Southeast Europe. "Two weeks ago 178 nations gathered in Bonn and agreed to implement the Kyoto treaty. The vast majority of the world's countries agreed on a framework to reduce greenhouse gases and stem the tide of global warming. The United States was not among them. We had abruptly rejected the treaty in March, and in Bonn we didn't even offer alternative proposals despite pleas from our closest allies. "German Environment Minister, Juergen Trittin, told our delegation just before Bonn that an aloof United States could devastate U.S.-European relations. I'm afraid he was right. "I'm not a scientist. But virtually every study I've seen leaves little doubt that global warming is a serious, mounting problem that must be addressed. Yet on this issue, the U.S. was disengaged, disconnected, without a voice or even a position at the negotiating table. "The Kyoto protocol is not perfect. It needs to be changed. The Europeans and Japan said they were willing to change it. But just last week EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman said of Kyoto: 'Basically, we're going to continue to do our own thing here.' "The Europeans also said we had sent mixed messages on the Balkans. Just before our trip, President Bush had reassured NATO that America would remain with our allies in the region until the job is finished. I applaud the President on this commitment. But I'm disappointed that it took him months to make it. The administration spent week after week creating uncertainty and downright anxiety among our allies about our commitment to the region. In my view, this pushed our allies away from us, creating suspicion and distrust when a policy of continuity was needed most. "Our allies were also worried about our lack of commitment to an arms collection force in Macedonia. For years, American forces have been in Macedonia to stabilize the region. Lord Robertson told us that, like with most other NATO operations, an American presence was important for political reasons. It would reinforce our commitment to NATO and send a signal to the warring factions that a military solution is simply unacceptable. Yet the administration has resisted a commitment of even a small number of ground troops to this mission. "Europeans had other issues on their minds. Our backing away from a critical mediating role in the Middle East. Abandoning the biological weapons treaty. Weakening the small arms accord. And, most problematic as they look ahead, our future relationship with Russia. "Just as the Soviet Union shaped our policies during the Cold War, our European allies recognize that Russia will also be a major shaping force in the years to come. In Europe, everyone we met was talking about the future relationship between Russia and the United States. They were especially concerned about what increasingly seems like a unilateral policy on national missile defense, which could antagonize Russia and undermine U.S.-European relations. "While it's true that the administration backtracked somewhat at the recent G-8 summit - saying it would work with President Putin and not single-handedly abandon decades of strategic nuclear arms control - it's also true that, like with so many issues, the administration seems to be saying one thing and doing something different. "Earlier this year, President Bush announced that he wants to replace the existing strategic architecture of arms control and nuclear weapons agreements with a new strategic 'framework' for the 21st century. Updating these policies is a worthy goal. But it's become more than clear over time that the administration's principle aim is to push aside the ABM Treaty in order to build a new missile defense system. The administration repeatedly has said that it will move ahead whether or not it wins agreement from other nations. And other than missile defense, it has offered almost no new ideas for a strategic framework to promote security for America and the world. "Since the G-8 summit, President Bush and his aides have begun issuing ultimatums to the Russians: if you don't agree to our plans for offensive and defensive weapons by our deadline, we will pursue our objectives without you. "I think these ultimatums are unwise. And they are likely to have negative consequences for U.S. security and our position in the world. "Think about what has happened as the administration has ratcheted up the unilateral rhetoric in just the last few months: "The largely symbolic, yet potentially destabilizing treaty between Russia and China, designed in part to counter U.S. global dominance. "President Putin's announcement that he might place multiple warheads on Russian missiles. "And Russia's success at the U.N. in blocking our efforts to strengthen sanctions against Iraq, just ten days after Presidents Bush and Putin had their first meeting in Slovenia. "These examples demonstrate a simple yet profound fact of international relations: one nation, acting alone, cannot possibly build a lasting strategic framework to which all other nations submit. We preserved stability in the last 30 years because the two superpowers agreed to the rules of the road and wrote them together with other nations. We negotiated. We collaborated. And we signed the ABM, the INF, the CFE, and the START Treaties. "That's a successful track record. And we face peril today if we abandon it along with our friends and allies and potential partners around the globe. A unilateral approach to missile defense could hurt U.S.-European ties, destabilize relations with Russia, antagonize China, and isolate us from the world. "If the administration is truly committed to a new strategic framework that enhances our security and foreign relations, it must be engaged in Europe. It must be open to a new partnership with Russia. It should not unilaterally scrap the ABM Treaty. And instead of ultimatums, it must be willing to collaborate with other nations on a new security architecture. "The President has said that Russia is no longer the enemy. I agree with him. But Russia also is not yet a true partner to the United States. "There is great potential for collaboration with Russia. "But we must understand the complex nature of this relationship. And we must act accordingly. "The administration has moved ahead with praise for President Putin one day and unilateral actions the next. In meetings at Slovenia and Genoa, President Bush praised President Putin instead of criticizing his domestic policies in a constructive way. Later, President Bush shifted course, choosing confrontation over collaboration, adopting an unbending position on the ABM Treaty and missile defense. "Some Russians I spoke with found this confusing. Others said they were suspicious of our intentions. These actions have confounded many of our European allies, and they have made some apprehensive about the future. "We must move in a different direction in our dialogue with Russia. We should be honest in our views and consistent in our delivery. We should work together on issues of security among other areas of mutual interest. And we must clearly state our concerns about Chechnya, freedom of the press, religious tolerance, and the rule of law. Truth be told, Russia has in some ways become less free, less tolerant and less open since I last visited in 1998. "This is a disturbing development. We must watch it closely. I am not talking about being hostile to Russia. I am talking about being direct and honest as we advance our principles and pursue our interests. This approach is neither cynical nor is it idealistic. It can work. It has worked. "President Nixon signed the ABM Treaty and still highlighted the abuses of the Brezhnev regime. "President Reagan signed the INF Treaty and still strongly criticized Soviet domestic policies. "And the first President Bush signed START I ten years ago this week and still pushed for reforms that helped topple the Soviet Union. "I am confident that we can collaborate with Russia today on a new security architecture, and still call attention to policies that don't meet international standards. We are no longer divided by ideology. We have a unique opportunity to work more closely than ever to advance America's national interest. "That's why it's short-sighted at this time simply to try to get Russia to acquiesce to the desire by some to abrogate the ABM Treaty and construct a missile defense program that has not yet been proven to work. This is especially true when such actions could undermine our security and destabilize regions that are important to our interests. "Instead, in conjunction with our European allies, we should use this opportunity to pursue a partnership with Russia, collaborate on a new strategic framework that has meaning and value for all, and increase security not only for the United States, but for all nations that share this vision. Our goal should not be simply to build up our nation's defenses, but rather to increase our nation's security. "Framing a dialogue in these terms - mutual security as opposed to a unilateral shield - would lay the ground for a strategic framework that does more than simply trade new missile defense programs for offensive nuclear weapons cuts. In my view, a true trans-Atlantic collaboration can achieve a more comprehensive strategic framework that includes expanded arms control efforts, better non-proliferation measures, joint efforts to confront rogue states, and new, balanced, defense capabilities. "Last month the East-West Institute issued a report on U.S.-Russian relations. It reached a similar conclusion and made some of the same recommendations that I make here today. But I strongly disagree with the report's argument that the Bush administration's approach to Russia will lead to the broader strategic framework that is within our grasp. "Let me lay out the steps as I see them for building the new architecture. "First, we should combine U.S. nuclear arms cuts with verifiable reductions by Russia. This is critical. Unilateral U.S. reductions will not increase our security in any meaningful way without reciprocal reductions by our former adversary. We should also jump start efforts to implement START II, move forward on START III, and work to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. "Second, we must work with Russia to promote non-proliferation measures. These include weapons accountability, export controls and increased border security in Russia and other countries that possess materials and delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction. It also means helping Russia safeguard its nuclear weapons while preventing their further deterioration. A small investment in these areas can go a long way to reduce incentives for countries to export these materials to other nations. "In the last decade, we have already made substantial progress with Russia. For example, the Cooperative Threat Reduction program has more than anything else enhanced international security. It has dismantled nuclear weapons, secured fissile materials, and reduced the number of weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, the Bush administration put this program on hold for several months, and now it is trying to cut parts of it. We in Congress should do our part as well - by lifting bans on funding important CTR programs to eliminate plutonium and destroy chemical weapons. "Third, we must work with Russia and our allies to engage rogue nations that want to acquire or already possess nuclear weapons. We should use our leverage to pursue verifiable agreements that eliminate such threats. And we must work together to isolate rogue regimes that refuse to respond to these measures. "We cannot allow Russian veto threats at the United Nations to weaken our ability to contain Saddam Hussein. We should take advantage of Russia's relationship with North Korea, among other nations, to advance a strong counter-proliferation agenda. Similarly, Russia's security dialogue with China could become a useful mechanism for deepening understanding among all three countries - to the benefit of U.S. interests in Asia. "Finally, as a backstop to these efforts to reduce threats, we must work together to improve our defensive capabilities. The U.S. intelligence community has argued that the greatest threats to America and its allies are not ballistic missiles but terrorism, biological warfare, and an array of other new menaces. We need to take preventative measures and use our resources wisely. We need better border security, strong anti-terrorism measures, and new methods for detecting weapons of mass destruction. We should continue research on limited, effective, and affordable missile defense systems in cooperation with other nations threatened by rogue states. And we must insure that our troops - the backbone of the military - have the support they need each and every day. "A new strategic framework - built on mutual security - is in the interest of America, Russia, and Europe. But it is important that we establish a stable, long-term partnership with Russia in order to fully implement the framework and enjoy all its benefits. While developing the framework, we should encourage Russia's full integration into the trans-Atlantic community. After my discussions last month, I am convinced that the key to this partnership is to identify common threats, build common institutions, and promote a common commitment to democratic values. "President Putin opened the door to this first effort when he acknowledged earlier this year that Russia and Western Europe face a common missile threat. Lord Robertson urged us to seize this opening. It is good advice. Joint efforts in this area could spur collaboration on defensive technologies and measures to reduce threats at their source. We also should engage Russia in a deeper dialogue on other common threats such as terrorism, drug trafficking, and HIV/AIDS, which, according to recent reports, is spreading at alarming rates in Russia and neighboring states. "We must also build common institutions. In Europe, we heard that the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council was inadequate and unsatisfactory, at least in the eyes of the Russian government, because it only includes consultations. "Just as the Cooperative Threat Reduction program is focused on Russia's internal nuclear threats, we need to work through institutions to protect against external threats to the United States, our European allies and Russia. Perhaps the best way to reach this goal is Russia's eventual integration into NATO. Even President Putin has suggested that we work toward this day. NATO was created to defend against common threats and reduce conflicts among members. So what better way to prevent a new Cold War or something worse than to extend to Russia the prospect of NATO membership? Such an offer could also ease concerns about further NATO enlargement, especially in the Baltics. "Finally, the U.S.-Russian and U.S.-European partnership must rest on a common commitment to democratic values. We must be consistent and clear: a pre-condition to full integration is an open society with freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the rule of law. The United States has promoted these goals through a variety of aid programs. We should continue down this path. But it will be up to Russian leaders to determine the course of democracy and the pace and extent of integration into Europe. "A partnership stretching through Europe and into North America will bring countless benefits in trade, help us shape globalization, and increase peace and prosperity around the world. We can work on free and fair trade agreements that enhance people's standard of living and provide strong labor and environmental standards for all nations. We can strengthen development and financial institutions like the WTO, the IMF, and the UN, among others. And we can fight the global AIDS pandemic which is wreaking havoc on the economies and societies of too many nations. This pandemic fuels military instability and has become an international security problem as well. I remain convinced that winning this battle is the moral imperative of our time. "Last month we heard a great deal about European Union enlargement. There seems to be no dissent to the idea that the EU will expand to at least 9 additional countries over the next several years-making the EU a community of 450 million people. This community will trade with the U.S. and Russia, creating economic ties that will reinforce the strategic ties that have been the focus of my talk. "Finally with Russia, we must be honest about the limitations that will result if universal democratic values fail to take hold, and the opportunities that will rise up if they are allowed to flourish. "We must further our ties with Russia in a clear-headed way, build on our historic relationship with Western Europe, and fulfill the goal of a strategic partnership and framework for the 21st century. "This is my vision of where the United States should go. And after our meetings in Europe last month, I am more convinced than ever that the Europeans share this vision as well. "This is in keeping with the best in our recent international traditions. It is, in my view, a common vision for the coming century. And I hope with my head and heart that we move forward together, make the hard choices, and seize the moment to make a positive difference in the national security and everyday lives of all our citizens." /U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/ ***************************************************************** 2 Fishermen Stall Vieques Bombing August 04, 2001 VIEQUES, Puerto Rico- Carrying signs reading "Navy Out!", fishermen and protesters in nine speedboats invaded restricted waters off of Vieques Island Saturday, stalling U.S. Navy bombing exercises that have drawn the criticism of residents and politicians. Reporters watched from a boat outside of restricted waters as the speedboats raced toward the Navy's firing range, passing within 500 feet of several amphibious personnel carriers that were shuttling equipment and marines to a beach in preparation for mock invasion exercises. Two warships were about 3 miles away. Although security ships chased the boats out of the restricted waters, the fishermen managed to pull up to the range and drop a group of protesters off, three of whom were detained by authorities. The boat chase stalled ship-to-shore shelling for about three hours. Anti-Navy activists said at least 19 people were hiding on the range but Navy spokeswoman Lt. Cmdr. Katherine Goode said the Navy was "confident the range was clear" and that bombing exercises had resumed. "They are continually putting the lives of protesters at risk," said Robert Rabin, an anti-Navy activist. "They have been lucky and we have been lucky that no one has gotten killed." Since this round of exercises began Thursday, at least 28 people have been detained for allegedly trespassing on federal property. "This is a war that we have had with them for 60 years," said Jose Garcia, a 39-year-old fisherman. "My grandfather, father and my uncle all fought the same war and the Navy hasn't been able to put us down. The fishermen are the biggest headaches that they have." The fishermen, who say the waters around the bombing range are rich with conch, lobster and red snapper, are prohibited from fishing in the restricted areas during the Navy exercises. Fishing is among the most important sources of income on Vieques. The Navy recently announced a program of compensation that would pay fishermen $100 for each day that bombing exercises prevent them working, and grants of up to $25,000 to start small businesses. But some say it's not enough. "This is to make them know that this island and these waters are ours," said Carlos Maldonado, a 25-year-old fisherman, before he joined Saturday's protests. "They have to leave." The latest Vieques exercises started four days after 70 percent of Vieques residents voted for an immediate end to the bombing in a nonbinding local referendum Sunday. Thirty percent supported the Navy remaining indefinitely and resuming live bombing. President George Bush has promised the Navy will leave by 2003. But only 1.7 percent of voters among Vieques' 9,100 residents backed his plan. The exercises, expected to last 10 days, involve ship-to-shore shelling, air-to-ground bombing and beach landings with 23,000 personnel, making the maneuvers some of the biggest since a civilian guard was killed by off-target bombs in 1999, when the Navy began using inert bombs. The bombing is conducted 4 miles from civilian areas. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 3 Nuclear warning Miami Herald: August 4, 2001 Re the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's public hearing on relicensing FPL's Turkey Point plant: I don't deny that Turkey Point has provided many jobs and done terrific things for our community. But this is incidental and irrelevant when deciding whether the aging nuclear-power plant should be relicensed for another 20 years. At the NRC hearing, little attention was paid to important questions such as where the nuclear waste will be disposed, or any of the safety concerns of an aging nuclear power plant. Since Jan. 1, 2000, nine nuclear-power plants nationwide have been forced to shut down after aging equipment broke. At one point, the plant was affectionately compared to a classic old car that just needs worn-out parts replaced. That is the reason I got rid of my old car. It simply wasn't safe anymore, and that didn't even involve nuclear materials. The 40-year deadline, still 10 years away, is nothing new. Let's not jeopardize lives simply to extend the inevitable. If nothing else, slow down the relicensing process and study the site-specific safety issues more closely. KRISTI DOYNE-BAILEY Homestead Copyright 2001 Miami Herald ***************************************************************** 4 Remembering the victims of Hiroshima The Seattle Times: Local News: By Sabine am Orde Seattle Times staff reporter Charlene Mano likes the idea of non-Buddhists doing a Buddhist event. But that was not the only reason that six years ago she decided to join the committee that organizes the annual lantern-floating event on Green Lake every Aug. 6. "We want to remember the victims of the atomic bombing in Hiroshima," said Mano, education director at Seattle's Wing Luke Asian Museum. About 70,000 people died when the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima 56 years ago on Aug. 6. Relatives of Mano's grandmother were killed during the bombing. A second bomb was dropped three days later on Nagasaki. On Monday, hundreds of tiny silk-paper and plywood lanterns will drift on the lake to commemorate victims of the bombing. Calligraphers will write messages of peace and hope, prayers and names of loved ones on the lanterns. The tradition has its origins in Buddhism, Mano says, and was started here in 1984. It is a collaboration of many local churches and organizations, among them the Wing Luke Asian Museum, Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Japanese American Citizens League. For a long time, the committee focused on different topics each year, among them the effects of producing nuclear bombs, domestic violence and police brutality. In the last few years it has concentrated on the slogan "From Hiroshima to Hope" and has made it more of a family event, "so kids can learn about it at young age," Mano explained. Monday's event will start at 6:30 p.m. on the northwest shore of Green Lake, where people can pick up their lanterns and have them personalized. Lessons will be given on how to make origami cranes, which have come to symbolize peace. People should bring blankets, chairs and picnic lunches. At 7:30 p.m. the program will start with taiko drumming. At 9 p.m., the Rev. Taiga Ichikawa of the Nichiren Buddhist church will explain the lantern-floating tradition. Finally, a little after 9 p.m., participants will light the candles in their lanterns and launch them. Mano loves this moment: "It is very beautiful." ***************************************************************** 5 Activists revive nuclear freeze movement ©2001 MassLive Sunday, August 5, 2001 By WILLIAM SWEET GREENFIELD — With the Star Wars defense system a reality again in the nation's capital, local peace activists say their message needs to be heard now as much as ever. A group of self-described "peaceniks" marked the Aug. 5 anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima by walking across Franklin County yesterday. They plan to take up their banners today and walk through Hampshire County. "Keep Space For Peace," read one sign. "We're all concerned about advancing the cause of disarmament in the 21st century," said Sunny Miller, director of the Traprock Peace Center in Deerfield. She and others argue that military spending is an unnecessary — and immoral — drain on the country's resources, and preparations for war hurt society during peacetime as well. "This is to reawaken the anti-nuclear movement," said Toby Keyes of Leverett. "Since the Soviet Union collapsed and there have been no new nuclear power plants, people think we're out of danger. But we're not." Following morning prayers at the Traprock Peace Center, the group of about 15 walked from Deerfield to Greenfield along a route which traversed Gill, Montague and Leverett. A group of them, monks and other Buddhists from the Leverett Peace Pagoda, marched along banging drums and chanting "na mu myo ho ren ge kyo," a Buddhist prayer for peace. "It has to do with spirituality," said Suzanne Gluck-Sosis of Greenfield. Jews, Quakers and others joined the Buddhists on the walk, which the Leverett pagoda group has been doing since the days when the "nuclear freeze movement" was a known entity in the nation's newspapers. Buddhists spent two days fasting before the walk. "It helps bring peace around you," said Keyes. "I'm very idealistic and altruistic. I'm still a child who believes the world is a wonderful place," Gluck-Sosis said. After a night's rest at the Leverett Peace Pagoda, the group will resume the walk this morning, reaching the Amherst Common for a noon vigil. The group then takes the Norwottuck Trail to Northampton, where they will participate in some "street theater" at 4:30 p.m., outside the Unitarian Universalist Society, 220 Main St. Tonight from 6:30 to 9:30, the group hosts a No Nukes Revival at the Society, featuring speeches from Ira Helfand, co-founder of Physicians For Social Responsibility, and Nuclear Freeze activist Randy Kehler. Percussionist Tony Vacca performs. © 2001 UNION-NEWS. Used with permission. ***************************************************************** 6 Korean Survivors Remember Hiroshima Bomb Victims August 5 6:00 AM ET TOKYO (Reuters) - South Korean survivors of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima gathered in the city's Peace Memorial Park on Sunday, a day ahead of the 56th anniversary of the bombing, and called for compensation for victims now living abroad. The ceremony, at a monument to the 2,588 South Koreans who died as a result of the bomb, was attended by some 200 South Korean survivors and their families, Kyodo news agency said. There are about 2,300 survivors now living in South Korea (news - web sites), who have been unable to receive benefits under Japan's Atomic Bomb Victims Relief Law because they have left Japan. ``It is an issue that should be resolved while surviving hibakusha (atomic bombing victims) are alive,'' Kyodo quoted Pak So Sung, the chief of the Hiroshima regional unit of the pro-Seoul Korean Residents Union in Japan, as saying. In June, a Japanese district court ordered the Osaka prefectural government to pay 170,000 yen ($1,374) to Kwak Kwi-hun, 76, a Korean survivor of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, who now lives in Seoul. But the Japanese government appealed the court ruling later that month. Justice Minister Mayumi Moriyama has said Japanese law does not require the central or local governments to pay medical allowances to survivors living abroad. On Monday, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi will attend a ceremony in Hiroshima to mark the anniversary of the world's first atomic bombing attack. The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima by the United States on August 6, 1945, is believed to have killed up to 80,000 people instantly, and the death toll rose to some 140,000 by the end of 1945, out of an estimated population of 350,000. Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 When Einstein tried to prevent the atom bomb The Sunday Tribune - Spectrum - Article August 5, 2001 The bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, by the USA opened the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale. K.R.N. Swamy describes how on searching the archives of science libraries, one finds that most of the scientists were overcome by a gnawing fear that their attempts to develop the atom bomb would unleash a great peril on humanity. IT is interesting to consider how world famous scientists in Allied camps felt about the atom bomb. Searching the archives of science libraries, one finds that most of the scientists were overcome by a gnawing fear that their attempts to develop the atom bomb would unleash a great peril on humanity. [Albert Einstein] Einstein with his relativity theory can be rightly called the father of the atom bomb. But eminent humanists like late Romain Rolland have said that Einstein did not do his best to prevent the development of the atomic bomb. In the words of Romain Rolland, "Einstein, a genius in his scientific field, is weak, indecisive and inconsistent outside it". As a Jew, Einstein became unpopular with the Nazi rulers of Germany and had to flee to the USA. There his eminence as a scientist attracted to his camp many great figures in science like Leo Szilard, the Hungarian genius, and Enrico Fermi, the Italian physicist. To this galaxy of scientists was added Niels Bohr, the Danish servant, who has been called the Pope of Nuclear Physics. Einstein well realised that there were many eminent scientists in the Nazi camp who were capable of advancing further towards an atomic bomb. He felt that the main source of Uranium in the world, namely the Belgian Congo, should be kept out of German hands. As such on August 2, 1939, he wrote a letter to President Roosevelt asking for the USA’s intervention in keeping Congo out of Nazi occupation. [Testimony to the atom bomb attack on Hiroshima.] Testimony to the atom bomb attack on Hiroshima. In the Allied camp, the British, who bore the brunt of the war for the first two years, were in constant fear that the Germans might build the atom bomb first. The British Secret Service had informed Churchill that the German atom bomb might be ready by August, 1943. But the entry of the USA in World War II in 1941, changed the picture and with the help of scientists like Bohr, Fermi and Einstein, by 1943, the Allied forces heaved a sigh of relief that they were now sure of having the weapon first. Still the scientists felt that the building up the bomb should be preceded by a careful control of nuclear armaments. Niels Bohr, during one of his meetings with British statesman Winston Churchill, told him that the Allies must ensure that nuclear weapons would not be used indiscriminately. Churchill bluntly told Bohr that he felt that even an eminent scientist like Bohr should not dabble in politics and refused to listen to Bohr’s suggestions. Robert Oppenheimer, another eminent scientist, felt that they should not bother too much about politics and that in any case the question could come up only after the atom bomb was exploded. [Above, Hiroshima before the attack, and below, after the explosion.] Above, Hiroshima before the attack, and below, after the explosion. Yet the scientists felt very uneasy and approached Einstein — the most eminent of them all — for help. Einstein in turn requested President Roosevelt to meet Leo Szilard, one of the foremost physicists, in order to sort out the moral question. Unfortunately, Roosevelt died before the discussions could take concrete shape. In the early months of 1945, due to persistent efforts of the scientists, an interim committee was formed on the use of the atom bomb. This committee with atomic scientists like Arthur Crompton, Enrico Fermi, Ernest Lawrence and Robert Oppenheimer, discussed in detail as to how to use the atom bomb. At one stage, it was felt that when the first trial atom bomb would be exploded, Japan must be asked to send some observers to see for themselves its lethal effects. In was felt, that after seeing the devastation the atom bomb could cause, the Japanese might be willing to surrender without much ado. But American Secret Service pointed out that if the first test atom bomb proved to be a failure it would make the Japanese derisive of the American War efforts. Then the Americans would have no choice except to kill the Japanese observers in order to keep the secret. Even in the use of atom bomb the scientists wanted certain precautions to be taken, namely that the target would be a military one and that a warning should be given about the lethal effect of the nuclear weapons. The American Defence Department protested, that if a sufficient warning was given, the Japanese might move to Allied prisoners of war into the bombing zone and thus upset the bombing programme. Finally, six committees were formed to deal with the following aspects of the atom bomb — research, educative value, production, controls organisation and social and political implications of the atomic weapon. In the Alamogardo desert in July, 1945, the scientists witnessing the explosions became aware that they had created a bane on humanity. In the words of one of them, "Each of us was going to understand what he had witnessed and most of us were shocked at what we had done". Robert Oppenheimer, the physicist in charge of the team, felt that about 20,000 Japan might die because of the atom bomb and that might save hundreds of thousands of human lives if Japan could be forced to surrender without and invasion. As the day for the bombing of Hiroshima approached, the scientists became frantic and one of them even thought of demonstrating before the emerging United Nations, protesting against the use of the atom bomb. Seventy of the top scientists wrote a letter to President Truman warning him that using the atom bomb "Opens the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale". But still their effort was doomed and the Government of the USA decided to use the atom bomb against the Japanese. They succeeded as scientists, but failed as humanitarians. ***************************************************************** 8 Maralinga veteran claims parties ignoring compensation issue ABC News - 5 Aug 2001 17:07 ACST A prominent veteran of last century's atomic testing at Maralinga says both Labor and Liberal parties continue to ignore the need for veterans to receive compensation. Around 100 people have attended a forum at Adelaide's Trades Hall to mark tomorrow's 56th anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and to remember those involved in nuclear testing in Australia. The forum called for an apology and compensation from the Federal Government for workers, indigenous people and others effected by testing at Maralinga, Emu, Monte Bello Islands and Christmas Island. Former Maralinga Serviceman Avon Hudson says both sides of politics have historically ignored the plight of people like himself, and he does not believe that will change in the future. "It's been one of the most bitter disappointments, millions of dollars wasted on the commission," he said. "They could have just given it to the veterans, it would have done more good. "But we weren't to know that and worse than that, I've even been accused of wasting taxpayers' money, so, I mean, we've had a double-barrelled insult." > © 1999 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ***************************************************************** 9 Hiroshima day rally in Melbourne Radio Australia News - 5/08/01: A Hiroshima Day Rally to mark the first use of nuclear weapons by the U-S in 1945, will take place in the Australian city of Melbourne today. The rally commerorates the first time a nuclear weapon was used against a civilian population. However, rally organiser Jacob Grech says the rally is also in protest against Washington's National Missile Defence program In particular we're protesting against the United States missile defence shield, which is basically a subsidy of the weapons corporations, by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a useless shield which does no good and is only certain to escalate the already burgeoning arms race. (5/08/01, 11:52:54 AEST) This service includes material from Pacnews, Agence France-Presse (AFP) and Reuters which is copyright and cannot be reproduced. ***************************************************************** 10 Polls: BD army put on alert -DAWN - Top Stories; 06 August, 2001 [DAWN - the Internet Edition] DHAKA, Aug 5: Bangladesh's President Shahabuddin Ahmed on Sunday warned that the country's armed forces must be on standby to maintain peace during the forthcoming crucial general elections. "The members of the armed forces will be deployed, if needed, in the next elections after discussing with all concerned," he told top military brass. Bangladesh is currently under the jurisdiction of a caretaker government, appointed to hold elections following the completion of prime minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed's term of office. Political commentators have said the election, the date of which is expected to announced this month, is likely to be a tense affair as both major parties are desperate to secure victory after sharing power for the past decade. Ahmed added: "All steps will be taken to ensure that the next elections are free, fair and peaceful ... the armed forces may be required to maintain peace and discipline during the elections." In recent weeks repeated demands have been made by Khaleda Zia's Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)-led four-party alliance to deploy the military with full magistracy powers, a move opposed by Sheikh Hasina's Awami League. The independent Election Commission, which will oversee the elections, is yet to make a ruling on the issue. The 72-year-old president, who was hospitalised Saturday for a gall bladder operation, briefly left the Combined Military Hospital in Dhaka cantonment barracks to discuss plans with the military, presidential palace sources said. He had been suffering from pain for the past several days before being hospitalised and was expected to undergo an operation to remove gallstones on Monday, the sources said. "It is a minor operation and he was expected back in office by Wednesday," a presidential spokesman told AFP. The president praised the armed forces for their roles during the 1991 and 1996 general elections under caretaker governments, saying "the people of the country repose special confidence in you as you helped the democratic process by remaining above all controversy."-AFP/Reuters The DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2001 ***************************************************************** 11 Well that supplies water to Amarillo is shut down for tests HoustonChronicle.com Aug. 4, 2001, 10:01PM Associated Press AMARILLO -- A water well in Carson County that supplies more than one-third of Amarillo's water has been shut down to determine whether chemicals from a nuclear weapons facility are endangering public water supplies. The city will be deprived of a million gallons of water a day while tests continue, officials said. On Saturday, the Amarillo Globe-News reported that the length of two football fields separates a well that supplies Amarillo and a monitoring well in which the Pantex nuclear weapons facility has found benzene at levels more than twice those established as safe by the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA classifies benzene as a carcinogen, with the potential to cause leukemia and cancers, according to the agency's Integrated Risk Information System. The monitoring well containing the benzene, and lower levels of the solvent toluene, is one of five new wells meant to determine whether chemicals used at Pantex have moved through the Ogallala Aquifer, which runs under the plant site and private property. A sample taken in early July from the monitoring well contained 11 parts per billion of benzene. The EPA's regulatory standard is 5 parts per billion. Other monitoring wells contained lesser amounts, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. The solvents vaporize easily and could get into water as vapors, DOE officials said in a news release. Officials at BWXT, the company that manages Pantex, said cleanup measures will begin in September. The firm will seek to determine extent of the contamination and how to deal with the problem, according to the news release. On Thursday, the DOE notified officials of Amarillo and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission of the problem. ***************************************************************** 12 Reader's Comment Prompts Security Debate Jul. 27, 2001. Page 9 To Our Readers In response to "Mutually Assured Survival for the 21st Century," a letter by John Rieder, July 20. Editor, It is true that there are a handful of countries that would be targets of extremists wishing to cause terror or disruption — the United States and Russia are leading candidates for such extremists. However, let's look at Rieder's solution, which he rolled up into one sentence — "So why don't we become better friends, reduce our nuclear arsenals, commit our resources to other projects and build a system that allows us to defend ourselves against nuclear attack?" Incredibly simplistic, and yet a good idea — if undertaken in the right order. Have the United States and Russia become better friends? Well, U.S. President George W. Bush's cowboy attitude toward Russia and the rest of the world has not been conducive to improved Russian-American relations. In fact, Bush's foreign policy moves have not furthered any improvement in relations with any country. Have we reduced our nuclear arsenals? Russia has. However, the United States still has 10,500 nuclear warheads — a number which Bush has been urged to reduce by his own advisers. Has he? No. I guess it is better to let your own people starve than to feel impotent because you don't have nuclear weapons. And, as far as committing our resources to other projects and building a missile defense system — Bush has already committed our resources to other projects — namely, building a missile defense system! If Bush had undertaken this project in the order that Rieder had suggested, it would have been far more acceptable to both the U.S. taxpayer and the rest of the world. The fact is that he did not. He told us — all of us — that this was what he was going to do. We probably don't have the "resources" to reduce our ridiculously high number of nuclear warheads, because Bush has decided to commit the money to building a missile defense system — at a price tag of billions of dollars. You may not mind paying for this system, Rieder, but I certainly do — I'd rather spend the money helping our people in need and our friends abroad, and reducing our nuclear stockpile. Rick Pettit Rutland, Vermont Editor, I am astonished at what I see my fellow Americans write to your newspaper about what they see as the friendly and warm attitude my government has for Russia. They can not understand why Russia objects to the new NMD system our president is trying to get into place. Also they do not see anything wrong with NATO moving right up to the Russian border. Russia and America both signed the ABM Treaty as a way to prevent nuclear war by assuring mutual destruction if either party decided to launch a surprise attack against the other. This system worked for several decades and will continue to work into the foreseeable future if left in place. If this NMD system is not aimed at Russia, then why doesn't America offer to do it as joint project with Russia? And if NATO is not a threat to Russia, why does NATO not want to let Russia join as it is going to do for Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia? I'm sure Russia would be a much stronger ally than these little countries. Can you imagine what the United States' attitude would be if Russia entered into a military alliance with Mexico, Canada or Cuba? The United States has never been attacked through any of these countries, but Russia has suffered millions of deaths from invasion through every country it borders. Why is it so difficult for anyone to understand why Russia wants the countries it borders to be at the very least neutral? Russia's path to security lies with close contacts with Europe and its Asian neighbors. The United States is not European or Asian and its interest or not the same as Europe's or Asia's interests. Russia is both Asian and European. I hope someday the United States will realize that Russia wants to be America's friend, that it needs the United States. The United States needs Russia, but it does not know this yet. Russia is by far the largest country in the world and its resources could fuel both its and the U.S. economy for decades to come. Also, Russia is by far the strongest possible ally that the United States would ever need. Don't forget, Russia might be economically weak right now and have many internal problems, but what other country can destroy the United States? Roy Weaver Kaliningrad Editor, I am a simple financial analyst and not a great expert in politics. But I think that consequences of deploying a missile defense system are dangerous and unpredictable. Who can guarantee to me that in several years, having built an anti-missile umbrella and being invulnerable, the United States would not want to put its forces into action and would not decide, for instance, to bomb Moscow to defend the rights of Chechens? Or Minsk, or Kiev? It is already clear that many countries will not be able to build their own NMDs. By starting the build-up, the United States is challenging the rest of the world, it is provoking the build-up of new military technologies. The development of missile defense is the same as the development of new nuclear weapons, because to build an efficient interception system, one has to have a radically more sophisticated technology than those needed to build nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to find himself in the place of Yugoslavia or Milosevic. Now, in order to feel secure, it will be important to have not just nuclear weapons, but an anti-missile umbrella. Not yet, but the race has already begun and it will continue at a great speed. Perhaps the 1972 ABM treaty is outdated. But why not conclude another agreement without changing its founding principles? If the United States withdraws from the treaty, why shouldn't other countries violate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? There is already a precedent: Israel. Why did a country, which had to prevent nuclear proliferation, close its eyes? Why can some countries do it and not others? At the moment, the anti-missile defense is still an intention. But it already exerts huge moral pressure. It is natural that the leaders of certain countries will do all they can — make their people starve, channel all their resources into armaments — but they will try to escape the fate of Milosevic. Yes, perhaps the bombing of Belgrade and extradition of Milosevic will entirely change Yugoslavia for the better in several years. But to what degree has the goal justified the means? Who has the right to decide the fate of an entire nation, decide what kind of sacrifice can be made for the good of humankind? Or perhaps each country should pursue solely its own interests? I would also like to remind you that in 1988, when Russia spent millions of dollars building a radar station in Krasnoyarsk, it was the United States that forced the Russians to dismantle it, saying it violated the ABM Treaty. Ivan Danilkin Moscow "http://www.moscowtimes.ru ***************************************************************** 13 Collateral Effect of Atomic Explosions August 5, 2001 Sunday Q & A appears in this section weekly. Readers are invited to send in questions about national or international affairs; those selected will be answered by Times correspondents who specialize in those issues. Information about submitting questions appears below. Q. Recent talks between India and Pakistan bring up the question of possible use of nuclear weapons. If there were, say, 2 to 20 atomic explosions in that part of the world, aside from the disastrous consequences at the point of detonation, what would be the likely effects on other continents? A. James Glanz, a science correspondent for The Times, responds: By breaking a taboo that has existed for more than half a century, a nuclear exchange of that magnitude would make the world an infinitely more dangerous place and lead to consequences no one could foresee. With millions dead by blast, fire and radiation poisoning on the Indian subcontinent, civilizations there could collapse into chaos, potentially destabilizing governments around the globe. The physical effects outside the region would be the least of the world's worries — assuming the horrific situation did not spark nuclear war elsewhere. Before 1963, when a treaty banned the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, radioactive strontium, a fission byproduct, wafted around the globe and generated international outrage. Closer to the explosions, a radioactive isotope of iodine rained from the sky onto plants eaten by cows and goats, which then produced radioactive milk. Those distressing episodes would be replayed in the wake of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. The global economic consequences of such a disaster are incalculable. The world would somehow have to intervene to help more than a billion people whose governments had neglected their interests in the most repugnant way imaginable. Finally, the United States and other Western countries would rightly fear that the end of the nuclear taboo would mean an increase in proliferation, possibly leading to an era in which nuclear terrorism became a credible threat. The effect of a shadow that dark on humanity's fortunes is beyond reckoning. Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information ***************************************************************** 14 Pantex neighbors to city: We told you so Amarillo Globe-News: Local News: 08/04/01 By Jennifer Lutz For the neighbors around the Pantex Plant, finding solvents in wells has been happening for a while.
However, the newest discoveries of benzene and toluene in wells within 200 yards of city production wells made at least one neighbor's prediction come true.
Lori Henderson lives with her husband and two children northeast of the Pantex Plant.
"They were saying for a while it was at the border, at the fence line," Henderson said. "How could it stop right there? I pretty much figured it would be over the fence line."
The Hendersons, along with five other families, receive bottled water from the Pantex Plant, and plant officials recently paid to install charcoal filters on the domestic wells.
City residents will now understand what the Pantex neighbors have worried about for so long, Henderson said.
"That may make some of them wake up and notice it could get into their wells, too," Henderson said. "There's absolutely nothing stopping it."
The contamination could be farther than originally thought, said Pam Allison, who works at Serious Texans Against Nuclear Dumping, a local environmental group.
"Our position is the neighbors' water was really just as important as the city of Amarillo wells," Allison said. "To me, it was inev- itable they would find these contaminants once they started looking."
Pantex Plant officials drilled a monitoring well on Jim Osborne's property. Osborne lives north of the plant and west of the city's well field.
The Osbornes also receive bottled water from the plant.
"I'm just not surprised," Osborne said about the discovery of more contamination. "I hope they get it cleaned up or taken care of as soon as possible."
Officials found benzene from zero to 11 parts per billion in five monitoring wells north of the plant. The regulatory standard is 5 parts per billion. Toluene was detected below regulatory standards.
Plant officials test neighbors' filtered wells on a monthly basis.
"We're getting real tired of it," Henderson said. "We just wish it all would end."
2001 Amarillo Globe-News
*****************************************************************
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: