*****************************************************************
10/07/02 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 10.258
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 National says Cullen trying to start debate on nuclear policy
2 NZ's nuclear stance factor in US trade deal
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
3 US: Indian Point workers rally to keep plants open 
4 US: Political donations' helped Davis-Besse 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
5 Vieques
6 US: Father of Fallon leukemia cluster victim to conduct cancer surve
7 Hiroshima/Activist artist blames bomb for his cancer 
8 Nuclear 'health threat' to generations
9 Family calls for nuclear health tests
10 UK Doctor Opposes Gulf War Syndrome 'Mythology'
11 UK: Families of nuclear test veterans 'suffering'
12 US: NRC Conducts Special Inspection of Possible Radiation Exposures 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
13 US: Goshutes fight over N-waste and feel abandoned by state
14 Uranium powerhouse fuels dreams 
15 AU: Radioactive dump is put out to pasture - 
16 CTR's Battle for Permanent Waiver Becomes Fight for its Very 
17 Greens to oppose Laverton Shire bid to store nuclear waste. 
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
18 US: [southnews] Bush rattles sabre at Iraq
19 Tests to encourage missile, N-race: US -- 
20 EDITORIAL A Ticking Bomb in Russia
21 US: Saddam's Last Ploy
22 Sharon Tells Cabinet to Keep Quiet on U.S. Plans
23 US: Congressional war on Iraq 
24 N. Korea must show its sincerity
25 US: Grove: Decision looms this week on Iraq dilemma
26 US: What Good Is Delay? 
27 Truth's already a victim, and the war hasn't started
28 New Zealand government says U.S. trade pressure won't end 
29 US: Fox interview various reps on Iraq
30 Cullen: Nuclear Ban Pushes New Zealand Down US's Free-Trade Queue 
31 No 10 confident of tough UN resolution                         
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
32 Scarboro sampling draft report deadline extended 
33 Layoffs expected from accelerated cleanup program 
34 DOE hearing allows public to comment on nuke site 
35 EPA proposal repeats work, plants believe - 
36 Nuclear Test Readiness at Risk, DOE Reports
 
                          OTHER NUCLEAR
 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 National says Cullen trying to start debate on nuclear policy

<http://www.nzherald.co.nz/>

07.10.2002

The National Party says Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen 
deliberately commented on New Zealand's relationship with the 
United States with the aim of starting a public debate on the 
anti-nuclear issue.

Dr Cullen visited the US last week, and was told New Zealand's 
anti-nuclear law was a barrier to a trade deal worth about $1 
billion a year, and a factor in Australia being ahead of New 
Zealand in the race to achieve it.

He told NZPA yesterday the issue had been tactfully discussed, 
and he was not sure whether it was the firm position of the US 
administration.

He ruled out any change in the law, saying it would be "an 
extraordinarily bad signal" for New Zealand to send to other 
countries that trade liberalisation was connected with such 
issues.

Today, National's foreign affairs spokesman, Wayne Mapp, said his 
party's position was basically bipartisan.

"Dr Cullen has obviously quite deliberately raised the issue in 
the New Zealand public domain, presumably with the intent that 
people start thinking and talking about this issue," he said on 
National Radio.

"The question really is are we, as a nation, prepared to even 
have a national conversation on the issue."

Dr Mapp said any such debate could only be about the law which is 
preventing nuclear-powered ships coming to New Zealand, not about 
the ban on nuclear weapons.

"It could only ever be on the propulsion issue. New Zealanders 
right across the board are absolutely committed to New Zealand 
being nuclear free in terms of weapons," he said.

But Dr Mapp said it was 17 years since the policy came into 
force, and there had been many changes since then.

"Virtually all of the fleet is now conventionally-powered in the 
US navy," he said.

Dr Cullen said yesterday he did not think it was in the US 
interest for trade policy to be seen as a means of exerting 
pressure for strategic purposes.

He believed the US and Australia would enter free trade 
negotiations in the next few months, but did not expect a quick 
result.

In the meantime, New Zealand would continue impressing on the US 
administration and business interests that a deal was important, 
and should not be related to military alliances.

"The Australian relationship with the US has seen them favoured 
in terms of beginning discussions but there are many Americans, 
particularly within Congress I'm sure, who would not see that as 
a necessary and natural consequence of the strategic relationship 
between the US and Australia and would hope to see discussions 
occur with New Zealand as well," he said.

Dr Mapp said Australia was well ahead of New Zealand.

"Australia is in the queue, there will be negotiations. The 
reality is we're not in the queue," he said.

National has previously said it remains firmly committed to the 
anti-nuclear laws, and Dr Mapp said there would have to be 
widespread support before any change was considered.

ACT defence spokesman Ken Shirley said Labour and National should 
stop "shadow boxing" on the nuclear propulsion issue and clearly 
state their positions.

Dr Cullen had initiated a debate on the issue to sound out the 
electorate.

"For their part, National are pirouetting around the issue 
confirming their non-nuclear policy on the one hand while 
simultaneously trying to beat up the Government for the lost 
opportunities resulting from the policy that they share."

ACT policy was to amend the anti-nuclear legislation and let 
nuclear-propelled ships into New Zealand ports and territorial 
waters.

"The removal of the ban on nuclear-propelled ships is the key to 
reactivating our involvement in Anzus which in turn would put us 
on equal footing with Australia in facilitating freer trade 
access to the US market," Mr Shirley said.

Progressive Coalition MP Matt Robson, who was disarmament 
minister in the previous government, said New Zealand's 
opposition to nuclear weapons gave it hard-earned moral 
authority.

He said Dr Mapp was being "two-faced when he makes his immoral 
call to cuddle up to the weapons of mass destruction club".

"New Zealand cannot be part of the United Nations weapons 
inspection team to destroy weapons of mass destruction in Iraq 
and at the same time try to be part of the club that continues 
with those same weapons of mass destruction," he said.

- NZPA

©Copyright 2002, New Zealand Herald       
*****************************************************************
 2 NZ's nuclear stance factor in US trade deal

<http://www.nzherald.co.nz/>

07.10.2002 By VERNON SMALL deputy political editor

Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen has raised eyebrows among 
senior colleagues by admitting New Zealand's anti-nuclear stance 
is a factor in Australia's head start in free-trade talks with 
the United States.

Background briefings by officials in the US and in New Zealand 
have always acknowledged that the "ally" status of Australia has 
given it the inside running on a coveted free-trade deal.

But Dr Cullen's comment breaks with the Government's public line 
- that although the ban on US nuclear ship visits is a sticking 
point in the relationship, trade and security issues are kept 
separate.

Senior sources said there was surprise at "how frank" Dr Cullen 
had been about discussions he had held in the US last week.

Prime Minister Helen Clark, in Sydney for the Warriors' rugby 
league grand final game, declined to be interviewed about Dr 
Cullen's comments.

Speaking through a spokesman, she repeated that New Zealand would 
not change the anti-nuclear law passed in 1987.

She said the issues of defence and trade had traditionally not 
been linked.

"New Zealand will argue the case for a free-trade agreement on 
its merits."

Dr Cullen also reaffirmed New Zealand's commitment to the 
anti-nuclear law and rejected a call from National MP Lockwood 
Smith for an independent inquiry into the policy.

Last year, foreign affairs officials warned Helen Clark that 
Australia was using its Anzus relationship with the US to steal a 
march on New Zealand. Australia has since decided to "go it 
alone" in trade negotiations.

During talks with President George Bush in April Helen Clark 
pressed New Zealand's case. She received a polite hearing after 
New Zealand's contribution of special forces to Afghanistan, but 
she was seen to make little progress on trade.

New Zealand is pushing more resources into its embassy in 
Washington to support its bid.

During his visit last week, Dr Cullen said he had argued "with 
some success ... that New Zealand should be next in line after 
Australia" because of the strong transtasman links through the 
closer economic relations pact.

A US-New Zealand free-trade pact is estimated to be worth $1 
billion a year to New Zealand through access to the world's 
largest market.

In a newspaper interview, Dr Cullen said the subject of New 
Zealand's anti-nuclear law was raised during discussions in 
Washington, and he was told the door was certainly not shut.

The anti-nuclear policy did not rule out a free-trade pact 
forever, but it was a reason the Bush Administration would deal 
with Australia first.

However, reports from Australia suggested that even alone, John 
Howard's Government is struggling to make progress.

US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick announced last week that 
Washington's priorities were to open free-trade talks with 
Morocco and five Central American countries.

That prompted Mr Howard to admit that a deal with the US might 
founder over agricultural trade.

©Copyright 2002, New Zealand Herald       
*****************************************************************
 3 Indian Point workers rally to keep plants open 

By HEMA EASLEY THE JOURNAL NEWS 

(Original publication: October 6, 2002) 

PEEKSKILL — Speaking at a rally that drew nearly 500 Indian Point 
workers and supporters, a union leader yesterday called efforts 
by an environmental group leading a drive to close the nuclear 
facility no more than "domestic terrorism." 

"Riverkeeper has no bearing as an environmental group," Manny 
Hellen, president of Local 1-2, Utility Workers Union of America, 
told the cheering crowd, which consisted primarily of plant 
workers and their family members. "This is domestic terrorism. 
It's psychological warfare. How else would you describe an 
organization that uses fear and propaganda to advance its cause?" 

Hellen said Riverkeeper has distorted facts about Indian Point's 
safety and played on the public's fear after the Sept. 11 attacks 
to push for the facility's closure. 

Riverkeeper, based in Garrison, has been leading a coalition of 
groups in a campaign to have Indian Point shut down. Along with 
many local residents, the group believes that in the event of a 
terrorist attack or a radioactive leak, the consequences for the 
region would be devastating. 

In response to the accusation that Riverkeeper was using 
propaganda to stir fear in the public, the group's executive 
director, Alex Matthiessen, said: "Nothing could be further from 
the truth. Ninety percent of the information that we use has been 
regurgitated from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's reports and 
data. 

"Our intent is not to scare the public. Our intent is to make 
information available so that they can make their own informed 
judgment." 

At the demonstration at Peekskill's Riverfront Green, Indian 
Point workers greeted Hellen's attack on Riverkeeper with shouts 
of, "Yeah, Yeah," and clapping. Some in the crowd held up banners 
reading, "Keep Indian Point Open," and, "Indian Point: Safe, 
Secure, Vital." Children distributed balloons and red-and-white 
pompoms, which supporters waved during the three-hour rally. 
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, pressure has grown 
for shutting down the reactors in Buchanan, an issue that has 
been marked by protests on both sides. 

In February, Riverfront Green was the venue for dueling Indian 
Point protests by plant workers and anti-nuclear activists. That 
event drew more than 1,000 people, most of whom were part of the 
increasingly vocal lobby of plant workers. 

Federal emergency and nuclear regulatory officials recently 
conducted a drill of emergency response plans for Indian Point 2 
to show that the public could be safely evacuated or sheltered in 
the event of a real nuclear disaster at the power plant. 

But critics have severely criticized the Sept. 24 drill, saying 
key command centers were closed to public oversight, no actual 
evacuation was involved and the scenario tested didn't mirror the 
kind of sudden catastrophe the public fears most. 

"We want the plant open. We think it is very safe," said Arlene 
Sweeny. Her husband, John, works for Indian Point, and the couple 
recently bought a house a mile from the nuclear plants. 

"We wouldn't have bought a house here if it wasn't safe," she 
said. "He wouldn't be working there if we thought it wasn't 
safe." 

Hema Easley  [heasley@thejournalnews.com] 
    
  Home [http://www.thejournalnews.com] -News Copyright 2002 The 
Journal News, a Gannett Co [http://www.gannett.com/] .
*****************************************************************
 4 Political donations' helped Davis-Besse 

The Plain Dealer
                                       
10/07/02
 
How fortunate for FirstEn ergy Corp. that Rep. Billy Tauzin's 
House Energy and Commerce Committee found that future 
investigation into the Davis-Besse nuclear plant debacle was not 
needed. This was a disaster waiting to happen and due to the 
laxity of FirstEnergy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it 
almost did. 

FirstEnergy must be very pleased with how its investments in 
Tauzin and Rep. Paul Gillmor, as reported in The Plain Dealer 
Sept. 27, have paid off. This is yet another example of how the 
money of Big Business influences our politicians. 

Bernard Epstein 

University Heights 

© 2002 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission. 

 © 2002 cleveland.com. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 5 Vieques
 
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 23:26:42 -0500 (CDT)

 
congressperson.

Congress will soon go into recess.  Let's get more for Members of Congress
to write letters to Bush requesting the Executive Order on Vieques before
they soon go back to their districts to campaign.  

The following are only a few of the Members of Congress -along with the
email address of one of their staff- who need a little extra push.  So
please call them and/or email them and tell them to send the letter as soon
as possible, and also please follow up on the other congressional offices
you may have contacted in the past.  Below you will also find the most
recent letter to Bush by a Member of Congress specifically requesting an
Executive Order on Vieques (#31, by Rep. Jim McDermott of WA).

Thank you,
Mayaguezanos con Vieques

U.S. Capitol Switchboard: 202-225-3121 (toll free: 1-800-648-3516)

Maxine Waters (California):
kathleen.sengstock@mail.house.gov

Zoe Lofgren (California):
Sandra.Soto@mail.house.gov

Lucille Royball-Allard (California):
Victor.Castillo@mail.house.gov

Hilda Solis (California):
laura.rodriguez@mail.house.gov

Nancy Pelosi (California):
carolyn.bartholomew@mail.house.gov

Diane DeGette (Colorado):
ben.humphreys@mail.house.gov

Mark Udall (Colorado):
jennifer.barrett@mail.house.gov

Barney Frank (Mass.):
peter.kovar@mail.house.gov

John Tierney (Mass.):
christine.pelosi@mail.house.gov

Sen. John Kerry  (Mass.):
kate_rhudy@kerry.senate.gov 

Lloyd Doggett (Texas):
michael.mucchetti@mail.house.gov

September 23, 2002

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C.  20500

Dear Mr. President:

I am writing to urge you to issue an Executive Order that ends 
immediately the military training and bombing operations by the U.S. 
Navy on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques.  This is a matter of 
great importance to constituents in my Congressional District. 

For more than two decades, Puerto Ricans have opposed the military 
use of Vieques.  The damage inflicted by the U.S. Navy has caused 
irreparable environmental and economic damage, and its continued use 
further endangers the health and well-being of the people of the 
island.

Your issuance of an Executive Order would be consistent with the June 
14, 2001 announcement of your decision to permanently cease military 
operations on Vieques by May 2003.  An early decision to turn over 
the Navy-owned land to the U.S. Department of the Interior for clean-
up and disposal to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is warranted.

Your consideration of this matter is most appreciated.

Sincerely,

JIM McDERMOTT
Member of Congress

*****************************************************************
 6 Father of Fallon leukemia cluster victim to conduct cancer survey
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
October 06, 2002 
 
ASSOCIATED PRESS 

FALLON, Nev. (AP) - The father of a Fallon childhood leukemia 
cluster victim will soon launch a door-to-door survey here to try 
to determine whether a higher-than-normal cancer rate exists. 

Floyd Sands of Mehoopany, Pa., said he wants to uncover the cause 
of his daughter Stephanie's disease and eventual death. 

The 21-year-old woman died in September 2001 at a Pennsylvania 
hospital after battling the disease for two years. 

She is one of 16 people ages 20 or younger - all with ties to the 
Fallon area - who have been diagnosed with a form of childhood 
leukemia since 1997. Two others have died. 

"We're basically doing a door-to-door canvas of Fallon residents 
asking five basic questions," Floyd Sands told the Lahontan 
Valley News &Fallon Eagle Standard newspaper. 

He said he and a team of volunteers, including University of 
Nevada, Reno students, will start the three-day survey Oct. 14. 

The five questions concern the health conditions of members of 
each household. Residents will be asked whether they have any 
diseases such as leukemia, lymphoma, lupus or other cancers. No 
names or addresses will be taken. 

"Depending on the number of volunteers and the hours they're 
available, we hope to cover the whole city," Sands said. "I've 
heard it's impossible, but impossible is not in our vocabulary 
... We'll knock on every door possible." 

Sands, a former Fallon resident, said he believes no genuine 
effort has been made by state and federal health officials to 
find the cause of the leukemia cluster. 

He said the answer could be found by simply asking Fallon 
residents if there are any sicknesses in their family, then 
comparing the results with statistics from the National Institute 
of Health. 

"I hope we don't find anything," he told the newspaper. "What 
we're looking for is the incidence of diseases above the normal 
... if something jumps out at us." 

After results are tabulated and presented to Fallon leukemia 
families and Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, D-Fallon, they will 
be released to the public, he said. 

In a suburb of Sacramento, Calif., residents are conducting a 
similar grassroots investigation to try to determine the extent 
of a potential cancer cluster, also involving leukemia. 

The Fallon cancer cluster was identified in 2000 and state health 
officials suspect an environmental cause. 

Information from: Lahontan Valley News, Fallon 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 7 Hiroshima/Activist artist blames bomb for his cancer 

Daily Yomiuri On-Line

Yomiuri Shimbun 

Hiroshi Hara, 71, a survivor of the 1945 atomic bombing of 
Hiroshima who has been painting watercolors with antinuclear 
themes for the past eight years, has been hospitalized with colon 
cancer that he attributes to exposure to the bomb's radiation. 

The resident of Aki Ward, Hiroshima, began painting his 1,208th 
image of the A-bomb Dome on Sept. 26, but stopped after two hours 
without finishing it, saying he would paint again after 
recovering. 

Hara was 13 when the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. As the 
leader of the Hiroshima o Kataru-kai (Association to Tell about 
Hiroshima), which disbanded in spring last year, he used to 
relate his experiences to children. 

Starting in April 1994, he began painting pictures of the A-bomb 
Dome every day at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park in memory of 
the war dead. 

He sometimes created as many as three paintings a day. Two of his 
works are on display in UNESCO's Paris headquarters. Hara 
finished his 500th painting on Dec. 6, 1996, when the dome was 
designated as a world heritage site. 

Recently, he had been forced to slow down because of worsening 
eyesight due to glaucoma--possibly caused by his exposure to the 
atomic bomb blast--but he managed to finish his 1,201st painting 
when a ceremony to mark the bombing was held this year. 

Hara lost his appetite in late August, and when he had a medical 
check-up on Sept. 16 he was found to have cancer. 

He lost the desire to paint, but he was encouraged by a letter 
from some of the children who had heard his stories and urged him 
to continue his work until he finishes his 2,000th painting. 

Hara said he told himself not to succumb to the disease. 

On Sept. 26, he used water from the Motoyasugawa river near the 
memorial park to dissolve colors, as usual, and began painting. 
The dome seemed to be angry at the United States, which resumed 
its subcritical nuclear testing that day, Hara said. 

Hara, who is expected to undergo an operation in early October to 
remove the cancer, will be hospitalized for about one month. 

"My succumbing to cancer caused by radioactivity would mean I've 
lost to the atomic bomb. I'll keep painting until I die and there 
are no more atomic bombs in this world," he said.   

Copyright 2002 The Yomiuri Shimbun 
*****************************************************************
 8 Nuclear 'health threat' to generations
 			 	 
BBC NEWS | UK | 

Sunday, 6 October, 2002, 15:08 GMT 16:08 

[Maralinga]                                     

Maralinga: Australian site was base for weapons tests

Radiation exposure from nuclear bomb testing has left generations 
of servicemen and their families suffering from ill-health and 
disease, a newspaper has claimed. 

The nuclear tests were carried out in the 1950s and witnessed by 
15,000 servicemen in Australia and the Pacific. 

The investigation, as a result, argues three generations of men, 
their children and grandchildren have suffered cancers, mental 
illness, deformity, infertility and long-term illness. 

The Ministry of Defence (MoD), however, has discounted the 
alleged link as unproven. 

The survey, undertaken by the Sunday Mirror, claims: 

  + Leukaemia rates among servicemen's grandchildren are six 
times the national average

  + The number born with deformities and other crippling diseases 
is 10 times above average

  + Rates of Down's syndrome are seven times higher The figures 
in the newspaper¿s investigation are based on a sample of 350 
nuclear test veterans of who 115 reported health problems with 
their grandchildren. 

Test programme 

John Urqhuart, a government adviser on radiation exposure, called 
for a fresh review into possible links. 

He told the BBC: "If we are not investigating it, we are not 
investigating a very important problem. 

"We really need to know more about this." 
		 			
[Australia]                                                      

Australia was a popular site for British nuclear testing in the 
1950s and numerous servicemen were sent out to observe or witness 
the test programme. Notable sites included twelve blasts at 
Maralinga near Adelaide on the south Australian coast and the 
first A-bomb test explosion on the Monte Bello islands in 1952. 

Responding to the claims, the Ministry of Defence insisted that, 
so far, studies had failed to reveal any link between the nuclear 
tests and illness. Tony Blair supported a private member's bill 
in 1990 calling for compensation for the veterans. 

However, the government now believes there is insufficient 
evidence surrounding the claims. 

A spokeswoman for the MoD said: "Comprehensive independent 
studies including some 42,000 individuals have shown no evidence 
of excess illness or mortality amongst the veterans that could be 
linked to participation in the nuclear test programme. 

"The MoD has seen no evidence to contradict these findings. 

"If there is any new evidence or data it should be put before the 
independent panel of experts." 
	         	
© MMII | News Sources | Privacy 
*****************************************************************
 9 Family calls for nuclear health tests

BBC NEWS | UK | Wales | 

Monday, 7 October, 2002, 07:34 GMT 08:34 

[Michelle Roberts (right) and daughter Louise] Michelle (right) 
and Louise had abnormal pregnancies

Relatives of an army veteran from north Wales used in nuclear 
experiments are demanding health tests after a series of medical 
problems in the family. The family of Norman Callender, from 
Caernarfon, north Wales, claim they have been affected by 
radiation as a result of his involvement with nuclear tests in 
the 1950s. 
		 			
[Norman Callender] Norman Callender died of cancer last year
 		 		 			  
Mr Callender - who died of cancer last year - witnessed Britain's 
first nuclear tests on Christmas Island in the Pacific. 

His granddaughter Louise recently had to abort her baby because a 
scan revealed it had no arms or legs. 

She was not the first woman in her family to lose a baby. Her 
mother Michelle Roberts miscarried a badly deformed child. 

She was born with a heart defect, and claims she has had to cope 
with a series of other medical problems for several years. 

"I've been in and out of hospital since 1990," she said.

 "I just want to know what's wrong with me." 

First tests 

"I've had the most horrendous tests you can think of, but I still 
haven't had an answer." 

Mrs Roberts' father was among those who witnessed Britain's first 
nuclear tests on Christmas Island. 

New research by a Sunday newspaper has suggested that the 
grandchildren of nuclear test veteran are six times more likely 
to develop leukaemia and seven times more likely to develop Downs 
Syndrome. 

The government has dismissed the findings - but the Callenders, 
along with many other veterans' familes, have insisted their 
problems must be taken seriously. 
		 			
[mushroom cloud] Thousands claim they were affected by the tests
 		 		 			  
Earlier this year two British law firms began investigating 
thousands of claims by veterans who said they became chronically 
ill after witnessing nuclear tests during the 1950s and 1960s. 

The work being carried out by Alexander Harris and Clarke 
Willmott &Clarke could result in legal action against the 
Ministry of Defence to claim compensation for the victims. 

Thousands of British, Commonwealth and United States troops took 
part in the tests which were held in Australia, Christmas Island 
and other islands in the South Pacific. 

Many of those present say they were not given suitable protective 
clothing as they watched the detonation of nuclear devices by 
Britain and the United States. 

Cancer deaths 

The MoD has always denied that the level of exposure was enough 
to have caused the cancers and associated illnesses which many of 
the veterans claim resulted from the tests. 

A number have died from cancer and others say the exposure to 
atomic radiation has made them severely ill. 

Mervyn Fudge, a partner at Clarke Willmott &Clarke, said: 
"Research shows that the stance taken by the Ministry of Defence 
is incorrect and that the veterans have sustained injuries which 
should allow them to claim compensation from the British 
Government". 

It is still unclear how many veterans have been affected and 
would be in a position to claim compensation. 

A helpline has been set up for veterans who may have questions 
about the investigations: 0800 358 1855. 
	         	
© MMII | News Sources | Privacy 
*****************************************************************
 10 UK Doctor Opposes Gulf War Syndrome 'Mythology'

   Reuters Wire | 10/07/2002 | 

      Posted on Mon, Oct. 07, 2002           
    
 BY PETER GRAFF Reuters
 
LONDON - As the world prepares for a possible second Gulf War, 
there is unfinished business from the first: "Gulf War Syndrome," 
the media's name for a collection of symptoms that disabled 
thousands of otherwise healthy veterans.
 
More than a decade after allies fought to drive Iraqi troops from 
Kuwait, thousands of veterans are still suffering symptoms that 
range from exhaustion to loss of motor function.
 
It makes a good news story, but Dr. Harry Lee says it is time to 
drop it. The reports are hurting his patients.
 
"It's been a tragedy. It's been a mythology that's been 
propounded by the press and television," said Lee, who heads a 
team that worked with 3,000 British Gulf veterans for the Defense 
Ministry.
 
"The more people cling to a group of symptoms -- 'I served in the 
Gulf so I have Gulf War Syndrome' -- then they won't get better," 
he told Reuters.
 
Neither the United States nor Britain accepts that a direct link 
has been established between the war and the syndrome, even 
though the countries have spent more than 300 million dollars 
researching possible causes.
 
Veterans' groups say they suspect the use of pesticides in the 
battlefield, burning oil tanks, bombs made from depleted uranium 
and new vaccines for causing health problems.
 
Yet Lee's finding that there is no Gulf War Syndrome, newly 
published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, has 
ignited outrage among ailing veterans and their scientist 
supporters as the West contemplates a new Iraq war. In a 
statement on behalf of a British veterans' group, Dr. Malcolm 
Hooper, of Britain's University of Sunderland, called Lee's work 
"wicked" and "a betrayal of the trust of the veterans."
 
And Dr. Robert Haley of the University of Texas Southwestern told 
Reuters that Lee's work was "not even junk science."
 
"It's anti-science. What hypothesis is he testing?" said Haley, 
whose research has shown that a small number of Gulf War veterans 
have suffered impaired brain function. "We actually want to find 
out what's wrong with these people and find a cure."
 
POLITICAL MINEFIELD
 
All sides in the debate say Gulf War veterans are no more likely 
than others to die of illness, or to develop ailments that 
require hospitalization.
 
Even a report backed by Haley for a U.S. government advisory 
committee, which said up to 30 percent of Gulf War veterans were 
ill, concluded the ailments had "generally not been associated 
with increases in mortality and hospitalization rates."
 
But stories of disabled veterans tug on the emotions.
 
British veteran James Moore says his life is a wreck. He suffers 
from blinding headaches, night sweats, nausea and diarrhea, and 
constant pain in his knees, hand, elbows and shoulders.
 
"I stutter. I slur my words. Sometimes people think you're drunk 
when you've had nothing to drink at all," he told Reuters.
 
"I'm looking with some trepidation at some forthcoming action 
against Iraq again. I don't understand how you can send fit men 
and women into an area where they are possible to suffer long 
term health problems for years afterwards."
 
In the United States, Gulf War illness is a signature cause of 
billionaire Ross Perot, who held hearings with U.S. congressmen 
in Britain in June. He has likened leaving the issue unsolved to 
leaving the wounded on the battlefield.
 
Efforts have been taken, especially by Washington, to compensate 
veterans without acknowledging a syndrome exists.
 
Congress passed a law allowing U.S. Gulf veterans to claim full 
disability benefits for life, if they show that they are disabled 
by "undiagnosed symptoms." About 3,000 of the 700,000 U.S. Gulf 
War veterans are receiving the benefit.
 
"A lot of Gulf War veterans are very sick," said Defense 
Department spokesman Austin Camacho. "You can't, can't, can't 
tell people who are suffering that there is nothing wrong with 
them."
 
But Lee argues that leaving the door open is making the problem 
worse, by adding to the anxiety that makes veterans ill.
 
BIRTH DEFECTS
 
Take the issue of birth defects, arguably the most 
heart-wrenching facet of all in reporting about Gulf War 
Syndrome.
 
"I've had patients come to me who are newly married, who have 
read something in the paper and decided not to have children 
because they are afraid they will be born with birth defects. Can 
you imagine?" Lee says.
 
A 1997 paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine 
checked records of all live births at 135 military hospitals in 
the United States in 1991-93, and found that Gulf War veterans 
were no more likely than non-deployed soldiers to have children 
with defects.
 
"Because they read these things in the news about birth defects 
and cancer, they become terrified," Lee said. "When we tell them 
the facts they are greatly relieved."
   
  About Ledger-Enquirer.com
*****************************************************************
 11 UK: Families of nuclear test veterans 'suffering'

Scotsman.com <http://www.scotsman.com/>

*Monday, 7th October 2002* 

/Pauline Taylor/

THREE generations of Britons have had their lives blighted by 
nuclear-bomb tests which exposed thousands of British servicemen 
to high doses of radiation, army veterans have claimed.

Fifty years on from the first nuclear tests witnessed by 15,000 
servicemen in Australia and the Pacific, three generations of 
men, their children and grandchildren have suffered cancer, 
mental illness, deformity, infertility and long-term illness.

The ex-servicemen claim leukaemia rates among their grandchildren 
are six times the national average.

The number born with deformities and other crippling diseases is 
ten times higher than normal and the figure for Down?s syndrome 
is seven times higher, it has been claimed.

The figures are based on a sample of 350 nuclear-test veterans of 
whom 115 reported health problems in their grandchildren.

Responding to the claims last night, the Ministry of Defence 
insisted that, so far, studies had failed to reveal any link 
between the nuclear tests and illness.

A spokeswoman said: "Comprehensive independent studies including 
some 42,000 individuals have shown no evidence of excess illness 
or mortality amongst the veterans that could be linked to 
participation in the nuclear-test programme.

"The MoD has seen no evidence to contradict these findings.

"If there is any new evidence or data it should be put before the 
independent panel of experts."

 ©2002 scotsman.com <http://www.scotsman.com> | contact
*****************************************************************
 12 NRC Conducts Special Inspection of Possible Radiation Exposures 
At Ann Arbor Medical Facility

NRC: News Release - Region III - 2002-055 - 

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, 
Region III 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532 www.nrc.gov
   
  No. III-02-055                                  October 4, 2002 
CONTACT:     Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 
829-9662     E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov [opa3@nrc.gov]   
  
  The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions staff is conducting a 
special inspection into possible radiation doses above NRC limits 
which occurred while family members visited a patient receiving a 
nuclear medicine treatment at St. Joseph Mercy Health System in 
Ann Arbor, Michigan. The medical facility reported to the NRC 
that a patient received a therapeutic dose of radioactive 
iodine-131on July 1. The patients condition subsequently 
worsened, and she died on July 7. There is no indication that her 
death was associated with the iodine-131 treatment.
 
Members of the patients family visited during the treatment 
period and were in prolonged, close contact with the patient. 

The hospital reported that one family member may have received a 
radiation dose in the range of 3,000 to 5,600 millirems, based on 
conservative assumptions. The NRC limit for radiation doses to a 
member of the public is 100 millirems per year. (A millirem is a 
standard measure of radiation dose.)
 
Radiation exposures in the range reported would not produce any 
immediate health effects; the NRC limit for workers in 
occupations associated with radiation is 5,000 millirems per 
year.
 
Other family members visiting the patient may have received 
significantly lower doses, although possibly in excess of the NRC 
limit. 

The hospital placed shielding around the patient to reduce the 
radiation level and counseled the family members on the need to 
minimize their time and proximity to the patient. Due to the 
family members desire to be near the patient, many of the family 
members apparently did not adhere to the controls established and 
the directions provided by the licensee to minimize radiation 
exposure. 

The hospital initially reported the situation to the NRC on 
August 15 and submitted its final report to the agency on October 
1.
 
Following its review of the reports, the NRC dispatched two 
radiation specialists to perform a special inspection to review 
the circumstances surrounding the possible overexposures and to 
perform independent calculations of the possible radiation doses 
received by the family members.
   
Privacy Statement |     Site Disclaimer Last revised Friday, 
October 04, 2002   
*****************************************************************
 13 Goshutes fight over N-waste and feel abandoned by state

[deseretnews.com] 
 	
Sunday, October 6, 2002
 	   	 
By Donna Kemp Spangler Deseret News staff writer SKULL VALLEY, 
Tooele County — A Goshute tribal member is bemoaning what he 
calls bad faith on the part of Gov. Mike Leavitt.

Michael Brandy, Deseret News  

       Sammy Blackbear is a leader of dissident band members 
fighting tribal leadership to stop nuclear waste from going to 
tribal lands. As such, he's a natural ally of Leavitt, who is 
fighting the same battle against storing nuclear waste here. But 
he says Leavitt has broken his promises.       

That leaves a faction of the fractured nuclear waste opposition 
destitute of means to keep up its fight in federal courtrooms.

       "The state reneged on a deal," said Blackbear, referring 
to a promise by the state to appropriate money for the Goshute 
opposition's legal case. To date, Blackbear's legal team has 
received $214,000 to help pay a bill that is estimated at more 
than $1 million over four years.

       Leavitt said that although he supports Blackbear's cause, 
he feels it's not appropriate for the state to continue to fund a 
lawsuit that's really a dispute with the tribal government.

       "Do I agree with Sammy's position? I do," the governor 
told the Deseret News Thursday. "I try to be supportive of our 
allies when it's appropriate, but Sammy's lawsuit is not one of 
them."

       Leavitt mounted his own legal campaign against the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs, which approved the lease between a consortium 
of nuclear power utilities and the Goshute tribal leadership to 
temporarily store spent fuel rods on tribal land while awaiting a 
permanent site at Yucca Mountain, Nev. But the federal courts 
have already ruled the state, which fears the nuclear waste could 
be permanent, did not have standing, leaving the dissident 
Goshutes to fight the battle on their own.

       That battle is being waged by environmental attorneys 
Duncan Steadman and Samuel Shepley, who have been driven to the 
brink of poverty by the all-consuming case. Steadman is now dying 
of pancreatic cancer (a third attorney in the case died two years 
ago in an auto accident).

       Blackbear dismisses rumors that Shepley would be forced to 
drop the case. "I am not worried about Sam leaving. He's 
committed," Blackbear said.

       He wishes he could say the same about the state. He 
watches the state's public relations machine with dismay.

       "It's PR crap," he said. "What they have been doing is 
using our work effort for their own fame. We are not in it for 
the glory. We are doing what we feel is right."

       Blackbear has resorted to begging for donations from 
Eastern environmental groups and other Indian tribes who abhor 
the thought of nuclear waste on tribal lands. There is a certain 
sense of irony, he said, that people in states that produce 
nuclear waste are stepping forward, but not in Utah where up to 
40,000 tons of highly toxic nuclear waste would be stored in 
above-ground canisters.

       Not all of the dissident Goshutes share Blackbear's 
opinion.

       "Sammy has never trusted the state," said Margene 
Bullcreek, who has split from Blackbear and hired Brigham Young 
University law professor Larry EchoHawk and his son, Mark, to 
represent her concerns. To date, the state has contributed 
$108,742 to Bullcreek's opposition case.

       That is money that is spent on environmental justice 
issues, explained Dianne Nielson, executive director of the Utah 
Department of Environmental Quality. "We have made it clear we 
could not cover those intertribal disputes," she added.

       State leaders say they are committed to stopping nuclear 
waste from entering the state, having spent about $3.4 million 
over the past four years to fight the plan.

       But if it were not for the legal efforts of the dissident 
tribal members, nuclear waste might now be rolling toward Utah, 
Blackbear said. "The reason why there is no nuclear waste here 
today is because of our efforts, not because of the state of 
Utah's," he added.

       Blackbear, a 38-year-old single father of three, is also 
frustrated at the Utah congressional delegation, which he says 
dismissed him with a healthy dose of condescension.

       "Their arrogance," he said. "They said, 'You give us 
information and we'll tell you what you can do with it.' It was 
insulting. This is crap."

       In 1997, Tribal Chairman Leon Bear signed a lease with 
Private Fuel Storage, a consortium of nuclear power utilities 
wanting to store waste on tribal lands for up to 40 years in the 
$3.1 billion facility. The BIA later approved the lease.

       That lease has never been made public, but it has led to 
allegations within the tribe that Bear supporters reaped 
financial windfalls while waste opponents were shut out.

       Blackbear points to one statement made by Bear that PFS is 
paying the tribe more than $1 million a year. "I have received 
$7.81," Blackbear said.

       And he is not kidding. "As long as I get paid something, I 
can't go to court and say I haven't been paid."

       In 1999, Blackbear and 17 other dissidents in the tribe, 
which numbers 67 adult members, filed a civil rights lawsuit 
against the secretary of the interior and the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, alleging corruption, bribery and other wrongdoing in 
connection with the lease.

       A federal judge in Salt Lake City recently dismissed the 
case on legal technicalities but urged Blackbear to re-file it to 
include claims not in the original lawsuit.

       "There is no basis for the allegations," Bear responded. 
"I don't know why they go through this whole process in court" 
when they have no chance of winning.

       Blackbear said there is proof, boxes of it. "As long as 
the BIA keeps getting us on technicalities, the judges won't hear 
the merit of the case," he said.

       Bear also asserts that Blackbear's attorneys are not 
sticking with the case out of the goodness of their hearts. "They 
are getting paid," he said.

       Shepley laughs at that, saying he is practically destitute 
because the Goshute case has eaten up all their time and 
resources — thousands of hours worth.

       "I have started living on our savings," said Shepley, who 
works from his home in Payson. "Right now we are about ready to 
go under."

       In the tightly knit Goshute community, the nuclear waste 
issue has divided the tribe. Most tribal members are related. 
Blackbear and Bear are actually cousins, "but we are not close," 
Blackbear observed.

       "Family or not, when you see somebody doing the wrong 
thing it doesn't make it hard to chose which side you are on," 
Blackbear said.

E-mail: donna@desnews.com [donna@desnews.com] 
	 
 © 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company 
*****************************************************************
 14 Uranium powerhouse fuels dreams 

NEWS.com.au | 

(October 07, 2002)

Workers 'waste' 90 days a year
	   
By Rebecca DiGirolamo
 				 				 
URANIUM production will double at South Australia's Olympic Dam 
mine and copper output will treble under $10billion expansion 
plans the state hopes will be its economic saviour. In a move 
that will transform the site 520km north of Adelaide into the 
largest mining operation in Australia, project owner WMC 
confirmed yesterday that it would start exploring an untapped ore 
deposit larger than the Adelaide CBD in a bid to boost annual 
copper production from 200,000 tonnes to 600,000 tonnes. 

The mining giant also wants to double uranium production to more 
than 10,000 tonnes at the mine. 

The Rann Government has set up a task force to assess the 
economic, environmental, technical and social impacts of the 
expansion. 

If approved, the plan has the potential to generate tens of 
thousands of jobs over the life of the mining operation, and 
attract related industries and research to the state. 

"Clearly, it could well be the economic saviour of the state," 
Business SA chief executive officer Peter Vaughan said. 

"South Australia has an ageing population and desperately needs a 
drawcard to bring people and industries to this state, and the 
WMC project is something that can do that." 

WMC corporate affairs manager Richard Yeeles said test drilling 
on a 3.3sqkm ore deposit near the mine would begin in January as 
part of a feasibility study. 

He said the expansion would make Olympic Dam the largest mining 
operation in Australia, adding hundreds of millions of export 
dollars to the national economy each year. 

Premier Mike Rann said the proposal would be the single most 
expensive and ambitious investment in South Australian history. 

"It would be a huge kick-start to the state economy. It would 
give us an essential shot in the arm," he said. 

The Government could see its $32 million annual collection in 
royalties from the mine's operation jump to nearly $100 million. 

"I want this investment to happen -- and I intend doing all I can 
to help it happen."                                

The Australian
*****************************************************************
 15 AU: Radioactive dump is put out to pasture - 

smh.com.au
 
By Penelope Debelle
 October 7 2002
 
The likely site for Australia's national low-level radioactive 
waste dump is on privately owned pastoral land in South Australia 
where sheep and cattle graze.
 
The owner, whose property falls inside the vast Woomera rocket 
area, expects a 1.5 kilometre square section to be compulsorily 
acquired by the Commonwealth for the dump.
 
"We're in livestock and virtually chemical-free up here," said 
the man, who does not want to be named, or his station 
identified, for fear the association with radioactive waste will 
ruin his business.
 
"Our main issue is perception of our stock and whether they are 
going to be glowing green - even though it may not be that bad, 
but that is the perception."
 
The site, which is due to be announced early next year, will 
permanently store short-lived radioactive waste mainly from 
hospitals and industry. This will include discarded protective 
clothing, contaminated soil and laboratory equipment. 

The Senate environment committee inquiry into uranium heard 
evidence in Adelaide last week from mine operators Heathgate 
Resources about a series of potentially hazardous spills at the 
Beverly uranium mine 200 kilometres to the east of Woomera. 

· Peace protesters clashed with police guarding the Pine Gap 
joint defence facility near Alice Springs for a second day 
yesterday. Four demonstrators are facing charges which include 
weapons offences. 

Copyright  © 2002. The Sydney Morning Herald.     advertise
*****************************************************************
 16 CTR's Battle for Permanent Waiver Becomes Fight for its Very 
Existence
 
International cooperation on naval clean-up

 This section covers international efforts to tackle the 
challenges deriving from inactive nuclear subs and nuclear waste. 
The US, Norway and EU have been main contributors to on-going 
projects.

MOSCOW - The Nunn-Lugar act is fighting for its very existence as 
its supporters battle opposition on Capital Hill to giving the US 
President permanent authority to waive the requirement that the 
chief executive sign off annually on the activities of the 
11-year-old American-Russian nuclear non-proliferation effort, a 
US government official told Bellona Web in a telephone interview 
Friday. 

  CTR-funded dismantlement of ballistic missile submarines takes 
place at the Nerpa shipyard, at the Kola Peninsula.   

  Nils Bøhmer   

Charles Digges, 2002-10-07 15:49

"We're fighting to save Nunn-Lugar every day. People are fighting 
us all the time, primarily in the House of Representatives," the 
official said. "What we need is something big, something big to 
bring these peoples' attention to this problem, because it's not 
going away." 

Asked whether the debate had reached a level of bipartisan 
bickering, the official wryly answered: "No, it's the 
Republicans," who can't seem to come to an agreement on the 
issue. 

The official and analysts point out that congressional and 
administration Republicans are not necessarily involved in a 
stone-walling effort to kill Nunn-Lugar, but that the Republican 
administration of President George Bush is itself bitterly 
divided about the future of the joint US-Russian 
non-proliferation programme. 

On one side, the government official said, there is the president 
and a number of his advisors who want Congress to pass a 
permanent waiver, granting Bush the authority to disburse funding 
for Nunn-Lugar without an annual review of Russia's "commitment" 
to its stated non-proliferation goals, as federal law currently 
requires. On the opposing side are arrayed other administration 
advisors, mostly Pentagon and State Department brass, who oppose 
bypassing the yearly progress evaluation of Russia's dismantling 
of nuclear and biological weapons as a precondition to US 
expenditures that aid the programmes. 

"Parts of the administration do not really care if the programmes 
are shut down because they have always been sceptical of their 
value," said Jon Wolfsthal, a former US Department of Energy 
(DOE) official who is now a non-proliferation expert with the 
Washington office of the Carnegie Endowment for International 
Peace. "Those portions of the administration that are pushing for 
the permanent waiver are doing so as part of the traditional 
battle with Congress over White House authority, while others are 
acutely aware of the risks." 

What could be at stake in this political melee is a programme 
that has since 1991 — with the help of the DOE's related 
non-proliferation efforts — supported the destruction of the 
former Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal. According to the US 
government's Defense Threat Reduction Agency website (

[http://www.dtra.mil/ctr/ctr_score.html] ), as of July 7th 2002 
5,970 nuclear warheads have been deactivated, 1,269 ballistic and 
long-range nuclear cruise missiles eliminated, 829 missile 
launchers destroyed, 97 long-range bombers eliminated and 24 
ballistic missile submarines destroyed. In addition, thousands of 
former Soviet weapons scientists have been supported by US funds 
in non-weapons related research. 

The waiver debate, therefore, is a piquant moment for the 
administration, which itself in March declined to certify 
Nunn-Lugar — officially known as the Co-operative Threat 
Reduction Act, or CTR, and run by the Pentagon — over concerns 
that Russia may still be developing non-conventional weapons. 
Bush finally signed a temporary waiver in August, giving CTR 
three months to start spending some $450 million budgeted for its 
non-proliferation programmes in Russia before the close of the 
2002 fiscal year, which came on October 1st. 

But Bush's current overtures toward attacking Iraq, and his open 
appeals to Congress for the waiver, have intensified the dilemma: 
on the one hand, the administration justifies military action 
against Iraq as a pre-emptive strike on Saddam Hussein's apparent 
stores of chemical weapons and incipient nuclear weapons 
capabilities. On the other, expert opinion holds that Iraq's 
nuclear capabilities are negligible unless it gets its hands on 
poorly secured fissile material from a third country, like Russia 
— just the kind of material CTR, and a permanent waiver for its 
activities, are designed to secure. 

The effect is that Bush's own political endorsement of those 
elements in his administration that encouraged him not to certify 
Nunn-Lugar this year may have become his biggest obstacle to one 
of the most effective methods of stemming the threat of nuclear 
terrorism — not just from Iraq, but worldwide. But the largely 
Republican hostility to CTR, said the government source, is 
nearly intractable in its opposition, and Senator Richard Lugar — 
himself a Republican from Indiana who co-authored the CTR act in 
1991 with Georgia Democrat Sam Nunn — is taking centre stage in 
this White House vs. Congress debate. 

"[The opposition] says Nunn-Lugar is foreign aid, they say the US 
Military should not be involved, they think [Nunn-Lugar deals 
with] environmental issues, they think they are issues the 
Pentagon should not be involved with," said the US government 
official. 

"Senator Lugar is saying that [poorly-secured weapons of mass 
destruction in Russia are] a national security issue — not only 
for the United States but for the world, for our allies in 
Europe, for NATO and others, for our allies in Asia." 

The CTR cause has also courted — and received — the warm support 
of America's most influential newspapers. One day early last 
month, the Washington Post devoted its lead editorial to 
supporting the permanent waiver. The New York Times editorial 
page followed suit last week. 

"Congress should grant President Bush the permanent authority he 
seeks to waive conditions that have slowed the flow of money to 
Russia for safeguarding dangerous materials," wrote the Times. 

"But the most important missing ingredient is sustained, 
high-level attention to a danger that virtually everyone agrees 
is there. An administration that is putting such intense effort 
into planning for war in Iraq and bolstering homeland security 
can surely pick up the pace on the much easier and cheaper task 
of safeguarding materials that could prove devastating in the 
wrong hands," the Times concluded. 

USA Today featured a page one article last week that chided 
Congress over the waiver issue by reporting on Russia's virtually 
unsecured stocks of chemical weapons at a Urals warehouse in 
Shchuchye. But even the austere opinion of the leading 
broadsheets seems to be having little effect on Capital Hill 
opposition. 

In the face of the threat of terrorist nuclear or chemical 
attacks — especially after the events of Sept. 11 made clear how 
easy such attacks could be — the government official said it was 
baffling to see such opposition to the permanent waiver, and the 
nearly blind resistance to the Nunn-Lugar programme on the floor 
of the House of Representatives. 

"When Senator Lugar sits down with [representatives of the 
opposition] and tries to explain the implications to US security 
and world security, [about] the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction, and the world we are facing, they listen politely 
and nod," said the official. 

"And then, all of the sudden, they say ‘Well, no.' And we say, 
‘Well, the president wants [the waiver] to happen,' and they have 
full respect for [the president] but they think he is wrong on 
this issue. It's mind-boggling." Indeed, the prospects of CTR 
making even deeper, more successful inroads into 
non-proliferation have never seemed better than they did this 
year. In July, G-8 member countries, during their Canadian 
summit, pledged to provide $10 billion over the next 10 years to 
continue the kinds of programmes sponsored by CTR. The United 
States pledged another $10 billion. 

According to a report in the Global Security Newswire, or GSN, 
Senator Lugar outlined a "top ten list" of how that money should 
be spent in the former Soviet Union over the next decade. 

Lugar's proposed future programmes include destroying Russia's 
estimated 2 million rounds of chemical weapons, securing Russia's 
biological pathogens, eliminating and securely storing tactical 
nuclear weapons, engaging more former Soviet weapons scientists 
in peaceful pursuits, providing enhanced security systems and 
training to the remaining 60% of Russian nuclear facilities that 
have not received them yet, and securing Russia's forgotten 
radioactive sources, such as radioactive generators that are 
spread throughout the former Soviet Union. 

According to non-proliferation experts, however, CTR is not 
likely to get a permanent waiver in the Defence Appropriations 
Bill for 2003, and will, once again, have to apply for 
re-certification of its programmes, which — unless the 
certification is granted more or less immediately — will set back 
its activities by eight to 10 months into the new fiscal year, as 
happened this year. Lacking this certification, roughly one third 
of CTR's activities controlled by the US Military shuts down. 

But the consensus among analysts is that the debate goes beyond 
granting waivers to the president and extends to arguments about 
whether the Nunn-Lugar programme should exist at all. 

"I think that some type of waiver will be granted but it won't be 
permanent," said Kenneth Luongo, executive director of the 
Russian American Nuclear Safety Advisory Council, or RANSAC, in 
an email interview with Bellona Web. RANSAC is a non-governmental 
organisation that advises both the US and Russian governments. 

"I really don't think that CTR is in mortal danger but a can of 
worms has been opened by this administration and it is being 
exploited on the Hill," said Luongo. 

Luongo noted that the conferences between the House of 
Representatives and the Senate on the Defence Authorization Bill 
were closed sessions, but that news that tricked out of them when 
they ended indicated that a permanent waiver for CTR was not in 
the offing, but rather one that had time periods for 
re-certification built in. 

He added that there may also be some temporary relief from the 
conditions Congress placed on the expenditure of funds for 
chemical weapons destruction. "It won't be much, but enough to 
allow the programme to limp along and not have to shut down," 
said Luongo. 

Luongo's version of the House-Senate conference was confirmed by 
the government official. 

Wolfsthal, however, said that missing the permanent waiver this 
year could cripple CTR, especially in the field of chemical 
weapons liquidation. "Failure to obtain a waiver this year will 
be a terrific blow to the chemical weapons destruction 
programme," he said. "People will be laid off, contractors will 
go home, and it will be hard to regain any momentum at the 
chemical weapons destruction site [in Shchuchye]," he said. 

"But if it is a temporary waiver — one to three years — then it 
will be hard to convince Russia to invest the resources it needs 
to provide over the long term for the project to be successful." 
Asked if he thought the programme as a whole was in danger of 
grinding to a halt over the waiver debate, he said:

"Yes, without a doubt." 

"If the programme shuts down, it may never be restarted," he 
said.   

  Publisher:  [bellona@bellona.no] , President:  
[frederic@bellona.no] Information:  [info@bellona.no] , Technical 
contact:  [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 
Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, 
Norway
*****************************************************************
 17 Greens to oppose Laverton Shire bid to store nuclear waste. 

7/10/2002. 

ABC News Online
 	
The Greens will strongly oppose any move by the Laverton Shire 
Council, in central Western Australia, to store nuclear waste 
within its boundaries.

The council is asking Laverton residents to comment on a proposal 
to store radio isotopes from the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney.

Greens spokesman Jim Scott says it is not a matter just for 
Laverton ratepayers but an issue for every Western Australian to 
consider.

He says Laverton should also appreciate that a nuclear waste 
facility could deter tourism and future mining projects in the 
shire.
 
© 2002 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
*****************************************************************
 18 [southnews] Bush rattles sabre at Iraq
 
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 18:41:46 -0500 (CDT)

 
Home Selling? Try Us!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/7gSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

  ----------

Bush Warns Iraq to Disarm or Face a U.S.-Led Coalition That Will Force Disarmament

By Ron Fournier The Associated Press Oct 7, 2002

CINCINNATI (AP) - President Bush, seeking warmaking power from Congress and
the United Nations, said Monday night that Iraq's Saddam Hussein is the
greatest threat to world peace and must be disarmed. "The time for denying,
deceiving and delaying has come to an end," he declared.

"Saddam Hussein must disarm himself or, for the sake of peace, we will lead
a coalition to disarm him," Bush said in remarks prepared for delivery in a
rare evening address to the nation.

On the anniversary of the first airstrikes in Afghanistan, Bush used an
appearance before civic groups in Cincinnati to try to explain why Iraq
should be the next front in the war on terror. He hoped to dispel doubts of
domestic critics and persuade other nations to support a U.N. resolution
ordering Iraq to submit to weapons inspections.

Advisers said the biggest questions Bush hoped to answer were: Why now? And
why Iraq? Critics question whether the threat posed by Saddam is imminent.

"While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands
alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place,"
Bush said. "By its past and present actions, by its technological
capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique."

The address came amid fresh evidence of voter unease as Republicans and
Democrats struggled for control of the House and Senate in Nov. 5
elections. While his job approval rating remains high, a new CBS-New York
Times poll showed that a solid majority of Americans believe Bush should
give U.N. weapons inspectors time to act.

Bush argued that Iraq's capability to attack with chemical, biological -
and, eventually, nuclear - weapons poses a grave threat to America and its
allies.

Democrats countered that he should focus more on the economy than Iraq.

"The threats posed by Iraq are significant, yet our nation's economic
security is just as critical," Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe
said. "The president should use the opportunity tonight to address the
American people's growing concern about our stalled economy."

The CBS-New York Times poll showed that more than one-third of Americans
fear the economy will get worse if the United States attacks Iraq. Half
think military action against Iraq would increase the risk of terrorist
attacks.

The House will begin debate Tuesday on the war resolution and probably will
vote Thursday. The Senate is expected to vote next week. Both chambers are
expected to give the president the authority he seeks.

Bush hopes to win overwhelming victory in Congress to build his case in the
United Nations for a tough new resolution forcing Saddam to disarm, by
force if necessary. The official policy of the United States to seek a
change of government in Iraq.

Bush, sensitive to critics who say he is too eager for war, focused on his
efforts to disarm Saddam rather than to oust him and pledged to help Iraq
recover if war were necessary.

"Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent
or unavoidable," Bush said in his Cincinnati speech. "The resolution will
tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one
voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean
something."

Bush won support Monday from House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, one
of the few senior Republicans in Congress who had voiced worries about the
president's Iraq policy. Armey said after an exhaustive review of the
facts, he now believes Iraq violated terms of the peace agreed after the
Persian Gulf War a decade ago. "I don't see this as pre-emptive at all,"
Armey said.

But Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., urged Bush to exercise the same restraint
that Kennedy's brother, President Kennedy, did in refraining from an attack
on Cuba during the 1962 missile crisis.

A first-strike attack on Iraq "is impossible to justify," Kennedy told the
Senate. "Might does not make right. It is unilateralism run amok."

Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., who supports a hard line toward Saddam,
nevertheless accused the administration of "gratuitous unilateralism" that
could undermine the war against terror.

"In word and deed," the administration "frequently sends the message that
others don't matter," the potential 2004 Democratic presidential candidate
said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies.

Bush tried to soften his tone, particularly toward the Iraqi people.

"America is a friend of the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only
at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us," Bush said in an address
to civics groups at the Cincinnati Museum Center.

At the United Nations, the United States continued talks with other
governments, trying to gain their approval for a Security Council
resolution accusing Iraq of violating past resolutions, specifying what it
must do and threatening force if it were to refuse.

Democrats spent the summer demanding that Bush work with the international
community on Iraq, then were caught off guard when the president decided to
work through the United Nations. White House officials hope to stagger
Democrats again by directly confronting their questions.

In Vienna, Austria, U.N. arms inspectors began four weeks of technical
training for their possible redeployment to Iraq for a new assessment of
Saddam's weapons arsenal. Bush wants the mission delayed while he presses
for a tough new U.N. resolution in Iraq.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, said Tehran will not let the
United States use its airspace to attack Iraq.

Bush's address drew little interest from the television networks. ABC, NBC
and CBS said they would not cover it live. The White House did not ask the
networks to interrupt their normal programs for his speech.

AP-ES-10-07-02 1830EDT

This story can be found at: http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAJ5WOY07D.html

  ----------

                              Bush's Iraq Lies

                             By Morgan Strong
         A UPI Outside view commentary From the International Desk
                                   10-6-2

  NEWARK, NJ (UPI) -- A decade ago, the United States and its allies
  liberated Kuwait from Iraq's occupation. The actual battle to free
  Kuwait was far shorter than the battle to win the approval of the
  American people to go to war.

  The military tactic of the battle to defeat Iraq and liberate Kuwait was
  quite similar to tactics used to convince the American public they had
  to go to war to defeat the evil menace of Iraqi President Saddam
  Hussein. In American football, they call it the "End Around." The
  military calls it a "Flanking Movement"; it is the same thing. The idea
  is to get behind the other side's defense by deception, than attack from
  the rear.

  President George Herbert Walker Bush did a marvelous job of getting
  behind the defenses of the American people and attacking their
  complacency and indifference from behind.

  The first President Bush had to convince the American public of Saddam's
  unmitigated evil. He brought in his best troops, a public relations firm
  bristling with the powerful weapons of deception and fraud, to convince
  the docile Americans they had to rid the world of this most despicable
  and evil man. The Americans had an obligation to restore peace,
  tranquility and democracy to the helpless people of Kuwait now
  brutalized by the hideous thug Saddam.

  The elder Bush had to show us just how evil Saddam was. So they told us
  about the atrocities the Iraqi army committed in Kuwait. They told us of
  how his troops had entered the hospitals of Kuwait and tore innocent
  babies from incubators and shipped the incubators back to hospitals in
  Iraq. We saw television news broadcasts of a young girl, a witness to
  this unimaginable horror, describe to a congressional committee how
  babies only days old were taken from incubators, thrown to the floor of
  the maternity ward in clear sight of their mothers, and stomped to death
  by Iraqi soldiers.

  Nothing could outrage the people of this country more than this awful
  barbaric cruelty, surely.

  The incubator story was repeated over, and over. There was testimony
  before the United Nations General Assembly by another witness, a Kuwaiti
  woman who said she also worked at the hospital and had seen this horror.
  Even the first President Bush repeated the story several times to
  demonstrate the extraordinary cruelty Saddam was capable of.

  The American people were provided the tearful pleas of elected officials
  of Kuwait imploring us to restore democratic government and free their
  people from the tyranny of Saddam.

  All of this was heart wrenching, and all of this was a lie. All of this
  was a product of a Washington D.C. public relations firm with close ties
  to the Bush administration.

  While Iraqi troops did commit atrocities in Kuwait, they never tore
  little babies from incubators and murdered them -- and there was never
  democracy in Kuwait. We found all this out afterwards.

  The young woman who testified to the horror before congress? She was the
  daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington. She was in Paris when
  the Iraqi's invaded Kuwait. She never worked in a hospital; she never
  worked in her life. Her father was a scion of the immensely wealthy
  dynasty that rules Kuwait. The woman who testified before the General
  Assembly? She was not in Kuwait at the time of the invasion either. She
  was the wife of the information minister of Kuwait

  And Democracy? A single family rules the country. The al Sabbah family.
  The emir the aged patriarch, rich beyond belief, who ran Kuwait, lived
  in an opulent palace with a lot of gold trimmings. There never was, and
  there is not now, or will there ever be, a democratic government in
  Kuwait. The tribe, the family, the dynasty run Kuwait. I came to the
  conclusion during my time reporting on the war from Saudi Arabia and
  from the desert accompanying the army of Kuwait during the battle for
  the country, that they are not very nice people.

  The American people had to be convinced that we were going to risk the
  lives of our young men and women to free the people of Kuwait and to rid
  the world of the evil of this man Saddam and his army. George Bush the
  elder lied to them to get them to agree. And they did. They tied yellow
  ribbons everywhere, rallied behind the men and women of their military.
  And we beat Saddam in a matter of hours. We beat his army and drove them
  in panic from Kuwait. And we were within sight of Baghdad. We could have
  gone into the city and routed Saddam from his palace. His army no longer
  existed.

  Why didn't we? That is another lie. We did not do it because if we had
  occupied Iraq we would be obligated to create a democratic government in
  Iraq. Nothing could upset our Arab brothers, our allies, more than a
  real democracy in the Middle East.

  Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, are all run by despotic
  dynasties. How long would they last if Iraq was free, truly free? And
  the Americans were there to make sure Iraq stayed that way. Not very
  long, I would bet. And somebody, maybe George Bush the elder would have
  had to convince the American people that we had to support these
  despotic regimes, no less oppressive than Saddam's Iraq, when the people
  of those countries rebelled and demanded freedom. We would be sending
  troops to every country in the Middle East just to keep our supply of
  oil intact.

  We can do business with dictators, we always have in the Middle East,
  and we would find it harder to do business with a free people.

  No matter what the Bush administrations tells us we have to remember it
  is really about oil and money. The rest is nonsense.

  -- Morgan Strong is a journalist and consultant on the Middle East for
  "60 Minutes" and others, and is a former professor of Middle Eastern
  History at Mercy College, Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.)

  http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021004-034429-3028r

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
southnews-unsubscribe@egroups.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
*****************************************************************
 19 Tests to encourage missile, N-race: US -- 

WASHINGTON,* Oct 5: The United States said on Friday that 
tit-for-tat missiles tests by India and Pakistan would further 
increase tension in an already tense region and encourage a 
nuclear and missile race between South Asia's two nuclear rivals.

"We are disappointed at ballistic tests occurring in the region," 
said State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher.

India tested a medium-range surface-to-air missile nine hours 
after Pakistan tested its own nuclear-capable medium-range 
ballistic missile. Islamabad then accused India of fuelling an 
arms race, a charge New Delhi immediately called an overreaction.

The State Department's spokesman further said: "There is a 
charged atmosphere in the region. Tests can contribute to that 
atmosphere and make it harder to prevent a destabilizing nuclear 
and missile arms race.

"We continue to urge both Pakistan and India to take steps to 
restrain their nuclear weapons and missile programmes, including 
no operational deployment ... and to begin dialogue on 
confidence-building measures which would reduce the likelihood 
that such weapons would ever be used," he added.

"Our primary concern is with missiles that can deliver weapons of 
mass destruction, which a surface-to-air missile cannot. In broad 
terms, however, we look to both India and Pakistan not to take 
steps that increase tension," said Boucher.

He said Washington was against missiles tests and would convey 
its feelings to both the countries.

Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved. No part 
*****************************************************************
 20 EDITORIAL A Ticking Bomb in Russia

Los Angeles Times - 

October 7, 2002
 
The United Nations, spurred by Washington, is pushing Iraq to let 
inspectors scour the country for its biological and chemical 
weapons. But what Iraq has may be peanuts compared with the 
stockpiles in Russia.

Inside Russia--but not far from Afghanistan--are 2 million 
artillery shells filled with nerve gas such as VX and sarin. The 
United States has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to design 
a plant to destroy those chemical weapons before they fall into 
the hands of other nations or terrorists. But for the last three 
years, Congress has blocked additional spending and some involved 
in building the facility are now being laid off.

The main bottleneck is in the U.S. House of Representatives. It 
should agree to resume funding for the plant in the Russian town 
of Shchuch'ye, near the border with Kazakhstan, that would 
destroy the deadly armaments.

Since the Cold War ended, the United States has helped finance 
Russia's destruction of nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads once aimed 
at the U.S. Hundreds of missiles, launchers and missile-firing 
submarines also have been destroyed. The Bush administration 
deserves praise for supporting this program.

The U.S. record on destroying chemical weapons like those in 
Russia is dismal, thanks to congressional reluctance to spend 
promised funds on destruction.

For the sake of comparison, U.N. inspectors reported in 1999, 
soon after they left Iraq for the last time, that Baghdad had not 
accounted for at least 15,000 artillery rockets that had been its 
preferred delivery method for nerve gas and for more than 500 
artillery shells filled with mustard agents. There is little 
doubt Iraq has continued producing sarin and VX gases in the 
years since, but the Russian stockpile would be hard to match.

A State Department official said last month that the United 
States has spent more than $6 billion to ensure that nuclear, 
chemical and biological weapons materials and technology in the 
former Soviet Union are safe from theft or surreptitious sales by 
underpaid workers in economically ravaged nations. That's money 
well spent.

Several Republican congressmen have complained, however, that 
Russia has not fully accounted for all weapons of mass 
destruction and has not provided practical plans for destroying 
those they agreed to scrap.

Congress in 1993 required that the president certify that states 
of the former Soviet Union were spending money to destroy weapons 
and were not replacing them before the U.S. allotted money for 
destruction. The president was allowed to waive certification if 
need be, but Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee 
have ordered additional conditions before U.S. money can be spent 
on destroying Russian chemical weapons.

The Bush administration is seeking the ability to waive those 
conditions as well if national security so requires. Some 
conditions are difficult or impossible to meet, such as a minute 
detailing of the stockpile that former Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn 
of Georgia says the Russians may not have or be able to put 
together.

Congress should grant at least a temporary waiver, preferably a 
permanent one. The longer the weapons exist, even in heavily 
guarded facilities thought to be secure, the greater the danger 
an enemy nation or terrorists will acquire them.

Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times
*****************************************************************
 21 Saddam's Last Ploy

The New York Times 

*October 7, 2002*  

*By WILLIAM SAFIRE*

WASHINGTON

The central question being put to President Bush is this: Is your 
purpose in Iraq limited to the destruction of all its present and 
potential weapons of mass destruction? Or is your goal "regime 
change" ? to overthrow Saddam Hussein, liberate the Iraqi people 
and remove the threat of terrorism planned against the U.S.?

The answer I hope Bush will give tonight is that the two purposes 
are inseparable; one cannot be achieved without the other.

Saddam's final ploy to avert ouster is to divide those two 
purposes. His technique has worked for him time and again over 
the past dozen years: acquiesce under pressure, play 
hide-and-seek with inspectors and then ? with France and Russia 
eager to do business ? eject the U.N. "spies."

He sees the U.S. Congress falling into step with the U.S. 
president this week. He knows that this will push the U.N. to 
pass an "or else" resolution. Accordingly, to prevent the purpose 
of disarmament from being joined to the purpose of his regime's 
overthrow, Saddam will launch his pre-emptive diplomatic strike: 
another "no conditions" invitation to the U.N. for "unfettered" 
inspections. Headlines will cheer: "Saddam Caves In; War 
Averted."

His "yes" will bring hosannas from the diplomats he has duped 
before. Delay will buy him the time his scientists and arms 
buyers need to provide enriched uranium as well as the ability to 
deliver a germ weapon to the West's major cities.

We must not take that lying "yes" for an answer. Defense 
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in his Sept. 18 testimony to House 
Armed Services, said: "Iraq has demonstrated great skill in 
playing the international community. . . . It's a dance. They can 
go on for months or years jerking the U.N. around."

It's a pity Rumsfeld's lucid, comprehensive 8,000-word case for 
liberation received just snippets of media coverage. It addressed 
24 questions, from "What's changed ? why now?" to "Where's the 
smoking gun?" to "Won't our Arab allies oppose us?" to "Won't 
this provoke him to use his terror weapons against us?"

Those who say they are waiting for the administration to "make 
its case" should read his 24 thoughtful answers in full. You can 
find them at 
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2002/s20020918-secdef.html (I 
think that's code for D-Day). Stalwart peacemongers may still 
disagree, but at least they'll be challenged to counter his 
answers with answers of their own.

I remember how our complacent C.I.A. misled the elder Bush's 
administration before the Kuwait invasion, deriding hard-liners' 
warnings about Saddam's weaponry. Rumsfeld evidently remembers, 
too: "Before Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the best 
intelligence estimates were that Iraq was at least 5-7 years away 
from having nuclear weapons. The experts were flat wrong. When 
the U.S. got on the ground, it found the Iraqis were probably six 
months to a year away ? not 5 to 7 years."

Some of our intelligence evaluators are making the same mistake 
as last time, interpreting their abysmal lack of hard 
intelligence as evidence of no nuclear weapons development.

In that regard, Brent Scowcroft, leading opponent of the Bush 
policy (who has still not resigned as chairman of the President's 
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board), made headlines by 
dismissing as "scant" evidence of Saddam's links to Al Qaeda. 
"Some have opined," testified Rumsfeld, "there is scant evidence 
of Iraq's ties to terrorists. . . . That is not correct. . . . We 
know that al-Qaeda is operating in Iraq today. . . . We also know 
that there have been a number of contacts between Iraq and 
al-Qaeda over the years."

After Gulf War II, we'll be flooded with confessions about 
Saddam's terrorist connections, just as we learned a decade ago 
of the C.I.A.'s egregious misjudgment of the danger posed by the 
lying dictator. Such past experience should remind us now: there 
can be no guarantee of disarmament in Iraq without the overthrow 
of Saddam and his gang.

? A noncorrection: Rudolf Scharping, until recently Germany's 
defense minister, claims there is no truth in my report of his 
informing a group in Hamburg that he told the Schröder cabinet 
that President Bush's motive in attacking Iraq is to win votes 
from a "perhaps too powerful Jewish lobby." I have three sources 
who were present backing up my account and I believe them.  

Copyright The New York Times Company
*****************************************************************
 22 Sharon Tells Cabinet to Keep Quiet on U.S. Plans

The New York Times 

 *October 7, 2002*  

*By JAMES BENNET*

JERUSALEM, Oct. 6 ? Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, warned 
his cabinet ministers today not to talk about American plans for 
Iraq, urging them to overcome for the good of the possible war 
effort what often seems a national compulsion to share one's 
insights as widely as possible.

Prodded by the Bush administration, Mr. Sharon concluded that it 
was time to address what one senior Israeli official today called 
"the blabbering thing that occurs here."

Given the rollicking tumult of Israeli politics, it is not 
uncommon to see leaks in the news media about official anger over 
leaks, or to read an inside account of one high official dressing 
down another for talking too much to reporters. The Israeli media 
have been awash recently with officials' views on Iraq.

The Israeli media have also been reporting that the Bush 
administration is furious about the chatter.

"Everybody wants to voice his opinion on any lively subject," the 
senior Israeli official said. "This is healthy. But there are 
times when you need to be responsible, to take responsibility, 
and to shut up."

Late last week, Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, who in the 
past has shared too much for the Bush administration's taste, 
ventured that the Americans would attack Iraq at the end of 
November. His comment captured banner headlines, even though his 
hasty clarification said that he was merely voicing a "personal 
assessment" and that he meant the attack would begin at the end 
of November or later.

Mr. Sharon is planning to go to Washington this month, at 
President Bush's invitation, to discuss Iraq and the 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

After today's cabinet meeting, the official public summary 
reported tersely, "Prime Minister Sharon requested that ministers 
cease making remarks about Iraq."

Even as Mr. Bush has sought in recent days to play up the 
imminence and potency of the Iraqi threat, some of Israel's top 
security officials have played both down.

Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, Israel's chief of staff, was quoted in the 
newspaper Maariv today as telling a trade group in a speech over 
the weekend, "I'm not losing any sleep over the Iraqi threat." 
The reason, he said, was that the military strength of Israel and 
Iraq had diverged so sharply in the last decade.

Israel's chief of military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Aharon 
Farkash, disputed contentions that Iraq was 18 months away from 
nuclear capability. In an interview on Saturday with Israeli 
television, he said army intelligence had concluded that Iraq's 
time frame was more like four years, and he said Iran's nuclear 
threat was as great as Iraq's.

General Farkash also said Iraq had grown militarily weaker since 
the Persian Gulf war in 1991 and had not deployed any missiles 
that could strike Israel.

The torrent of newspaper articles continued today with Yediot 
Ahronot elaborating on reports in the United States about the 
details of American-Israeli plans for coordination in the event 
of war. It said that Mr. Bush would give Mr. Sharon 72 hours 
notice and that the two nations had agreed on targets in Iraq. It 
also mentioned previously published reports that the Americans 
would offer Israel a satellite to provide early warning of Iraqi 
missile strikes and that spare parts and other American equipment 
would be stored in Israel.

The Bush administration wants to dissuade Israel from responding 
should Iraq attack it after an American invasion, fearing that 
Israeli action would rally Arab support for the Iraqi leader, 
Saddam Hussein.

*****************************************************************
 23 Congressional war on Iraq 

FOXNews.com
 
Sunday, October 06, 2002
 			 				 					 			   			     			     			     			 			
We are on the verge of an important week in the war on terror. 
Consider the calendar: Monday the Senate continues debate on a 
resolution to authorize military action against Iraq. That night 
President Bush delivers a major speech about Saddam Hussein's 
capabilities, and the administration hopes next week to broker a 
new United Nations Security Council resolution against the 
government of Iraq. 
			 				
Joining us to discuss these issues and more, Senate Minority 
Leader Trent Lott. 
			 				
Senator Lott, let me first begin by asking you about some of the 
reservations the Democrats have raised about a war resolution 
agreed upon by the president and a bipartisan group in the House 
of Representatives. 
			 				
Your colleague, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, had this to 
say the other day. He said, "I think it's fair to say that the 
information we've provided through intelligence sources is 
helpful, but I don't think it's conclusive. That is, I think you 
can interpret it in different ways. I don't think there is any 
consensus with regard to the threat today." 
			 				
In other words, it's not compelling enough to act now. What's 
your view? 
			 				
SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-Miss.): Well, it's interesting to me that Tom 
Daschle thought that it was compelling enough way back in 1998. 
He gave a really dramatic speech saying we've got to act, we've 
got to act now, Saddam Hussein is a threat, a continuing threat. 
			 				
There's plenty of evidence. In fact, there's no doubt that Saddam 
Hussein has biological and chemical weapons, has the ability to 
have nuclear weapons, and is trying to get the final products he 
needs to have it, and he has the ability to deliver them, and 
he's increasing the range. I mean, how much do you need to know? 
			 				
SNOW: Increasing the range of his missiles? 
			 				
LOTT: Yes, increasing the range of the missiles. You know, some 
people say he couldn't deliver a nuclear missile to the United 
States. Maybe not now, but he could in the region. And, by the 
way, biological and chemical weapons can be delivered in an 
aerosol can or an envelope. This is a part of the war on terror. 
He has weapons of mass destruction that could be used anywhere by 
just about any group. And we know he has had at least some 
contacts with Al Qaeda. 
			 				
SNOW: OK. Knowing all that, do you think Senator Daschle's 
politicizing the war effort? 
			 				
LOTT: Senator Daschle did not join the bipartisan group that came 
together last week. There were modifications made in the 
resolution the president originally asked for that took out the 
reference to the region and directed it only to Iraq, required 
additional reports to the Congress, urged that we reach out to 
the United Nations. This was a very good and responsible effort 
in a bipartisan way. Senator Daschle can't figure out quite what 
to do. 
			 				
The core... 
			 				
SNOW: Why do you think that is? 
			 				
LOTT: ... of the Democrat Party is certainly very liberal and, I 
think, is really represented by people like Jim McDermott and 
David Bonior that went over to Baghdad and said, "We can take 
Saddam Hussein at face value, but we can't trust the president of 
the United States." 
			 				
Now, as I said on the floor of the Senate earlier, who's the 
enemy here? Saddam Hussein or the president of the United States, 
George W. Bush? Well, there's no question about that. 
			 				
SNOW: You talked a moment ago about the capability of Iraq to 
deliver biological weapons. Do you think right now there is a 
threat that Iraq may be trying to deliver, via aerosol cans or 
envelopes, those kind of weapons on American soil? 
			 				
LOTT: There's evidence that is troubling in that area. I can't 
get into the details at this point. But why would he have them 
and continue to develop them if he didn't feel like he was going 
to need them and would be prepared to use them? 
			 				
SNOW: So you think -- let me try to rephrase it then -- that it 
is conceivable that he would try to do that? 
			 				
LOTT: It is conceivable that he would try to make use of these 
weapons. 
			 				
I think what he really wants is to be a modern-day leader or 
martyr, if you will, in the Arab world. And he would be prepared 
to do whatever it takes to reach that level of exultation. 
			 				
SNOW: Senator Biden has argued that the United States ought to be 
clear about what the real problem is with Iraq, not merely 
weapons of mass destruction but specifically nuclear weapons. 
			 				
Do you think the Senate would pass a war resolution that was 
limited to saying we would go after Saddam Hussein if we found 
out he was close to developing nuclear weapons? 
			 				
LOTT: I think that weapons of mass destruction are all very 
dangerous. I don't think we should just base it on nuclear 
weapons, and I don't think that's even what Senator Biden, but 
particularly Senator Lugar, have said. 
			 				
They have raised reservations about the whereas's that identify 
in the resolution all the different resolutions passed by the 
United Nations that have been ignored that talk about human 
rights violations and Kuwaiti prisoners and a whole variety of 
things. And their inference is, well, we wouldn't want to use 
force because the violation of... 
			 				
SNOW: Kuwaiti prisoners, he said. 
			 				
LOTT: Yes, Kuwaiti prisoners. 
			 				
By the way, it was put in there at the request of some Democrat 
leadership staff members. And we said, "Here's a whole litany of 
what he's not done." And the weight of the evidence creates this 
clear mosaic. We didn't mean to infer that based on any one 
violation, but the accumulation of those, but particularly the 
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. 
			 				
SNOW: So you might be amenable to some slight amendment of the 
resolution coming over from the House conference committee? 
			 				
LOTT: I don't want to hold that out. I think the resolution is 
fine the way it is. But if we could, you know, allay those fears 
in some way, certainly you've always to be trying to reach out 
and get the broadest possible support in the Senate. And I think 
we will have. 
			 				
SNOW: What do you want to hear the president say Monday night? 
			 				
LOTT: I want him to enumerate the fact that Saddam Hussein in 
instance after instance after instance, Saddam Hussein personally 
has killed people, violated all kinds of human rights and U.N. 
resolutions, and that he is the problem. And it's going to be 
very hard to deal with the weapons of mass destruction without 
being prepared to deal with him. 
			 				
SNOW: We keep talking about two games: getting rid of weapons of 
mass destruction and regime change. It's your view that you can't 
get rid of weapons of mass destruction until first you get rid of 
Saddam Hussein? 
			 				
LOTT: I think that's the way they're tied together. It's not 
that, you know, you just want to get rid of him. 
			 				
And, by the way, you're going to have regime change without him 
even leaving, once the people feel like that he can't kill them, 
that they're not threatened by him, the regime has changed 
instantly. I think Secretary Colin Powell made that point. 
			 				
I just don't think we're going to be able to really get an honest 
inspection, a complete inspection and destruction of weapons as 
long as he's in there dissembling the way he does. 
			 				
SNOW: OK, speaking of which, Hans Blix, who is the head of the 
U.N. weapons inspection group now called UNMOVIC, had this to say 
the other day about weapons inspections. I want to get your 
reaction. 
			 				
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 
			 				
HANS BLIX, U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: On the question of access, it 
was clarified that all sites are subject to immediate, 
unconditional and unrestricted access. However, the Memorandum of 
Understanding of 1998 establishes special procedures for access 
to eight presidential sites. 
			 				
(END VIDEO CLIP) 
			 				
SNOW: Under those circumstances, should the United States ever 
agree to such a resolution that would have, quote, "special 
rules" for presidential palaces in Iraq? 
			 				
LOTT: Absolutely not. I mean, you can't say "not here, not 
there," especially when you realize the size of these palaces 
and, by the way, the small area that's required to do some of 
this very dangerous research and assembly. 
			 				
SNOW: Let me take up a couple of other topics quickly. Department 
of Homeland Security, we've had some success in recent days. I 
guess you could call them the Portland Six, there were six people 
picked up the other day on suspicion of at least harboring some 
desire of dealing with Al Qaeda. 
			 				
The Department of Health and Human Services says it now has 
stockpile sufficient to inoculate everybody against smallpox. 
			 				
We've had a lot of success so far, correct? 
			 				
LOTT: We've had some successes, and I hope we can continue to 
have them. 
			 				
SNOW: The question then is, why do we need a Department of 
Homeland Security? Can you name any time in which somebody has 
made a department more efficient by making it larger? 
			 				
LOTT: No, I cannot. But hope springs eternal, Tony. 
			 				
(LAUGHTER) 
			 				
There's no question the federal government is dysfunctional in a 
number of areas. And a number of these agencies and parts of 
departments have not functioned well. They don't have the 
authority or they're hampered by union workplace rules that don't 
allow them to really do the job quickly and efficiently. All the 
way from the Border Patrol, and of course we all know the chaos 
at the Immigration and Naturalization Service. 
			 				
So I'm hoping -- in fact, I talked to Tom Ridge the other day -- 
one of my concerns about their proposal, Homeland Security 
Department, is they're going to bring 170,000 people under one 
umbrella. Well, you would think if you eliminated duplication and 
had greater efficiencies, you could do the job with 150 instead 
of the 170. 
			 				
So I would hope that you could get a department that is 
efficient, is run better. And that's what the fight in the Senate 
is over. The president wants the flexibility and the management 
ability and the national security waiver to say, "Forget all 
these delays and cumbersome rules, we're going to do the job," 
and the Democrats don't want that. 
			 				
SNOW: So he wants to change labor rules to make the department 
more efficient, correct? 
			 				
LOTT: Sure, yes. 
			 				
SNOW: So why not apply that same rule throughout the whole 
federal government? 
			 				
LOTT: You probably should. But certainly when it comes to 
security here at home, you should have that ability, because what 
you're talking about is American people's lives and their 
children's lives. 
			 				
LOTT: If we don't have the ability to move quickly and 
efficiently and do it in a coordinated way -- right now, you 
know, quite often you have turf wars between DEA and Customs and 
INS and Border. It's ridiculous. So, hopefully we can get a new 
Homeland Security Department. 
			 				
SNOW: New Jersey. The United States Supreme Court a few years ago 
in the case of Bush v. Gore said that the Florida Supreme Court 
had rewritten state law and it took the Supreme Court decision, 
threw it back to the Florida State Supreme Court, and said, "Find 
the place in the law where this is true." Now, many Republicans 
are saying the same thing has happened in New Jersey. 
			 				
If that is true, in the name of consistency, should not the U.S. 
Supreme Court hear this case? 
			 				
LOTT: I think they should, and I hope they will. But in the final 
analysis, this is going to be in the court of the opinion of the 
people of New Jersey, and I hope they're going to say, "We're 
tired of this. It's time for a change. We want somebody that's 
going to give us efficient and honest, effective government. Doug 
Forrester will do that." 
			 				
SNOW: All right, but... 
			 				
LOTT: But they're cheating here once again, Tony. It shows that 
if the rules don't suit them, they just change them. 
			 				
SNOW: Do you assume, though, that Frank Lautenberg is in fact 
going to be the Democratic candidate on the ballot? 
			 				
LOTT: I guess you have to assume he will be, and that's 
unfortunate because he has a very poor record of his own. He 
voted twice, for instance, against the death penalty for 
terrorists that killed U.S. citizens. Do the people of New Jersey 
want that? 
			 				
And by the way, I want to make the point. Torricelli isn't 
deceased, isn't sick, and it's not even about his ethical 
problems. It was about the fact he was losing. 
			 				
SNOW: All right, we're going to let Doug Forrester make those 
points later in the broadcast. 
			 				
Final question. The Washington Post said yesterday that you 
pretty much given up on the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit. True or false? 
			 				
LOTT: False, in that if all that meant was the Democrats are 
probably going continue to try -- or to block this very fine 
conservative American-dream success story, efficient, all of 
that, but it's only because we're running out of time and because 
they're determined to block him. 
			 				
Let me tell you this. He will be one of the first six judges that 
will be confirmed next year when Republicans take back control of 
the majority in the Senate. 
			 				
SNOW: And you're sure that you all -- are you afraid of any 
defections that would cost you a majority in the future if you 
were to regain the Senate? 
			 				
LOTT: I hope we're going to have enough of a margin, won't even 
have to worry about that. And it is definitely possible that that 
could be the case, Tony. 
			 				
SNOW: All right. Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, thanks for 
joining us. 
			 				
LOTT: All right, Tony. 
			 	 	   
FOX News Network, LLC 2002. All rights reserved. All market data 
*****************************************************************
 24 N. Korea must show its sincerity

Daily Yomiuri On-Line
 
Yomiuri Shimbun 

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly has held talks with 
senior North Korean officials in Pyongyang. The high-level 
meeting was the first of its kind to be conducted between the 
reclusive country and the administration of U.S. President George 
W. Bush. 

During the talks, Kelly expressed Washington's concerns about 
several issues, including North Korea's development and export of 
weapons of mass destruction and missiles. He also raised the 
topic of the North Korea's menacing deployment of conventional 
weapons and its human rights records. The U.S. assistant 
secretary of state strongly urged North Korean officials to help 
dispel these concerns. 

After his trip to Pyongyang, Kelly arrived in Tokyo, where he met 
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda and Foreign Minister Yoriko 
Kawaguchi. The three agreed that Japan, the United States and 
South Korea should cooperate in future dealings with the North. 
Kelly also told Japan that he had urged the North Korean 
officials to sincerely work toward resolving the dispute over 
Japanese abducted to their country. 

Stop missile sales; open up to inspectors 

North Korea must seriously heed the United States' warning and 
implement specific measures in line with it. The country must 
allow inspectors unfettered access to its nuclear facilities and 
abandon its missile development program. These are necessary 
steps toward closer relations with Japan and the United States. 
To ensure that North Korea lives up to these requirements, Japan 
should not rest its guard in dealing with the country. 

On Sunday, Radio Pyongyang said the North Korean government was 
prepared to resume dialogue with the United States if it dropped 
its hostile policy toward North Korea. To survive its current 
difficulties, Pyongyang has no choice but to carry on a dialogue 
with Washington. However, North Korea cannot expect to find a way 
out of its dire situation unless it works to put U.S. concerns to 
rest. 

In this sense, it is out of the question for North Korea to 
dismiss U.S. worries about the threat it poses as a result of 
Washington's hostile policy toward it. 

Long-time menace 

North Korea must seriously realize that the threat it has posed 
for years is a source of international distrust and caution. It 
continues to develop Taepodong and other long-range missiles 
despite international suspicion over its nuclear program, yet it 
is trying to gain money by selling missiles to the Middle East 
while soliciting food aid from the international community. This 
has posed a menace to an increasing number of countries. 

For years, North Korea has carried out hostile activities against 
Japan, including kidnapping Japanese citizens and dispatching 
armed spy ships to waters surrounding Japan. 

President Bush has consistently taken a stern attitude toward 
North Korea. He regards the North as part of an axis of evil, and 
says it is a nation attempting to acquire and proliferate weapons 
of mass destruction. His policy toward Pyongyang is marked by a 
firm determination to eliminate the threat posed by North Korea. 

Kelly's visit to the North Korean capital could contribute to an 
improvement in relations between Washington and Pyongyang. What 
comes out of the visit hinges on what North Korea does to dispel 
international concerns about the danger it represents. 

This question will also directly affect the fate of upcoming 
talks on normalizing diplomatic relations between Tokyo and 
Pyongyang. North Korea should fully realize that it will not be 
able to make any progress in promoting dialogue with Japan and 
the United States if it continues to be dishonest and deceptive. 

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Oct. 7)   

Copyright 2002 The Yomiuri Shimbun 
*****************************************************************
 25 Grove: Decision looms this week on Iraq dilemma
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
October 04, 2002 Benjamin Grove covers Washington, D.C., for the 
Sun. He can be reached at grove@lasvegassun.com 
[grove@lasvegassun.com] or (202) 662-7245.
 
 DO NEVADANS support an invasion of Iraq, even without United 
Nations or ally support? They do, if the state's four lawmakers 
in Congress reflect Nevada's population.

 Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., a frequent GOP critic, was one of 
a handful of Democrats amid 14 lawmakers who huddled with 
President Bush at the White House on Tuesday for an "amazing" 
45-minute meeting.

 Bush had been courting Democrats to support his policy to oust 
Saddam Hussein and Berkley caught the eye of the White House. She 
is a member of the International Relations Committee, which began 
the debate in Congress of the Iraq resolution last week. (She 
also sits on the Veterans Affairs Committee.) And Berkley had 
openly stated she was willing to work with the president to reach 
a resolution compromise.

 Berkley has repeatedly called for Bush to relentlessly pursue 
building a strong coalition with other nations. But she backs his 
request to invade Iraq with or without allies or the United 
Nations.

 So does Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. He told me he strongly objects 
to Democrats who advocate mandatory U.N. support.

 "I'm very, very disillusioned by that," Gibbons, a former 
Vietnam and Persian Gulf combat Air Force pilot, said. "The 
president should be able to use military force to defend military 
personnel without having to get the permission of the United 
Nations."

 Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said he would not change a word of the 
resolution crafted by Bush and House leaders last week that 
allows the president to launch a unilateral strike regardless of 
what the United Nations does.

 Lawmakers who support changes that stress diplomacy over giving 
Bush war authority "are marginalizing themselves when you have a 
compromise with this much support. It will pass with pretty 
overwhelming numbers," Ensign said.

 Only Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., has not jumped on the Bush 
resolution bandwagon. He may later this week, as the Senate 
likely wraps up debate.

 But late last week, Reid said he was also mulling a resolution 
by Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind.

 The Biden-Lugar resolution emphasizes exhausting diplomatic 
options and dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction first. 
It authorizes Bush to go it alone only if the United Nations does 
not pass a new resolution calling for stricter arms inspections. 
Bush also would have to prove that Iraq's weapons were so 
dangerous that an attack was absolutely necessary.

 Reid said he was "very impressed" with Biden-Lugar. "I want to 
see how that one feels when we get out there in debate," Reid 
said.

 Reid, who calls himself a "hawk," not a dove, has nevertheless 
been adamant that Bush vigorously pursue the support of the 
United Nations and European allies, calling a go-it-alone attack 
a very last resort.

 What's the rush? Reid has asked.

 House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt, whom Bush recruited to 
support his resolution last week, brushed off criticism that he 
sold out his party. Lawmakers have to make a personal decision, 
not a political one, based on their own consciences, Gephardt 
said.

 But they also should make decisions that take into account the 
will of their constituents, although that is not always easy to 
gauge. Many Americans say they support Bush, but others aren't so 
sure. A Washington Post poll last week found 61 percent of 
Americans support Saddam's forced ouster, but only 46 percent 
favored an invasion without allied support, with 47 percent 
opposed.

 Nevada's lawmakers, like the rest of Congress, are a microcosm 
of a nation that is wrestling with what to do about Iraq. This 
week they face the most difficult decision that exists in 
Washington: whether to endorse sending soldiers to war.

 They will have to painstakingly weigh each resolution and take 
their time debating every word.

 They will live with their vote -- and others may die because of 
it. 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 26 What Good Is Delay? 

(washingtonpost.com)
 
By Charles Krauthammer
 Monday, October 7, 2002; Page A19 

There are two logically coherent positions one can take on war 
with Iraq.
 
Hawks favor war on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is reckless, 
tyrannical and instinctively aggressive, and that if he comes 
into possession of nuclear weapons in addition to the weapons of 
mass destruction he already has, he is likely to use them or 
share them with terrorists. The threat of mass death on a scale 
never before seen residing in the hands of an unstable madman is 
intolerable -- and must be preempted.
 
Doves oppose war on the grounds that the risks exceed the gains. 
War with Iraq could be very costly, possibly degenerating into 
urban warfare. It likely would increase the chances of weapons of 
mass destruction being loosed by a Saddam Hussein facing 
extinction and with nothing to lose. Moreover, Saddam Hussein has 
as yet never used these weapons against America and its allies 
because he is deterred by our overwhelming power. Why disturb the 
status quo? Deterrence served us well against such monsters as 
Stalin and Mao. It will serve us just as well in containing a 
much weaker Saddam Hussein.
 
Preemption is the position of the Bush administration hawks. 
Deterrence is advanced by a small number of congressional 
Democratic doves. But, ah, there is a third way. It is the 
position of Democratic Party elders Al Gore, Ted Kennedy (both of 
whom delivered impassioned speeches attacking the president's 
policy) and, as far as can be determined, Senate Majority Leader 
Tom Daschle. This third way accepts all the premises of the 
antiwar camp. It gives us all the reasons why war could be 
catastrophic: chemical or bio-weapon attacks, door-to-door 
fighting in Baghdad, alienating allies, destroying the worldwide 
coalition of the war on terror, encouraging the recruitment of 
new terrorists, etc.
 
Moreover, they argue, deterrence works. "I have seen no 
persuasive evidence," said Kennedy, "that Saddam would not be 
deterred from attacking U.S. interests by America's overwhelming 
military superiority." So far, so good. But then these senior 
Democratic critics, having eviscerated the president's premises, 
proceed to enthusiastically endorse his conclusion -- that Saddam 
Hussein's weapons facilities must be subjected to the most 
intrusive and far-reaching inspection, and that if he cheats and 
refuses to cooperate, we must go to war against him.
 
This is utterly incoherent. In principle, a search for genocidal 
weapons that can be hidden in a basement or even a closet cannot 
possibly succeed without the full cooperation of the host 
government. Not a serious person on the planet believes that 
Saddam Hussein will give it.
 
More important, why are these critics insisting on inspection and 
disarmament anyway? They have elucidated all the various costs of 
attempting to disarm Iraq forcibly, and told us that deterrence 
has worked just fine to keep Saddam Hussein from doing us any 
harm. If deterrence works, by what logic does Kennedy insist that 
Saddam Hussein "must be disarmed"?
 
The enthusiasm of these senior Democrats for inspections is 
really nothing more than an argument for delay. Yet what 
advantage is there to delay? The war will be just as costly 
tomorrow as today. Even assuming that delay gets us a few extra 
allies, how does that prevent Saddam Hussein from launching his 
awful weapons or resorting to urban warfare?
 
The virtue of delay is that it gives Democrats political cover. 
Ever since George McGovern, Democrats have been trying to escape 
their reputation for being soft, indeed unserious, on foreign 
policy. The last time Saddam Hussein threatened the peace (by 
invading Kuwait), seven out of 10 Democrats in Congress voted 
against authorizing the use of force and in favor of the useless 
pseudo-solution of sanctions. So this time, the Democrats' 
leaders make the antiwar argument but have the political savvy to 
conclude by running up the flag and sounding the bugle.
 
I happen to believe that the preemption school is correct, that 
the risks of allowing Saddam Hussein to acquire his weapons will 
only grow with time. Nonetheless, I can both understand and 
respect those few Democrats who make the principled argument 
against war with Iraq on the grounds of deterrence, believing 
that safety lies in reliance on a proven (if perilous) balance of 
terror rather than the risky innovation of forcible disarmament 
by preemption.
 
What is hard both to understand and to respect, however, is the 
delay school. They tell us that this war will be both terrible 
and unnecessary -- and then come out foursquare in support of 
starting it later, after Saddam Hussein has refused to play nice 
with inspectors. They manage to criticize the war, and still come 
out in favor of it. A neat trick -- and, given the gravity of the 
issue, an unseemly one.
 
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
*****************************************************************
 27 Truth's already a victim, and the war hasn't started

Toronto Sun Columnist: Eric Margolis
 
 October 6, 2002 
 
 By ERIC MARGOLIS [margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com] -- 
Contributing Foreign Editor
 
SAN FRANCISCO -- Once the United States overthrows Saddam Hussein 
and "liberates" Iraq, it will then proceed to spread democracy, 
human rights, and enlightenment throughout the Mideast. So vows 
the Bush administration's national security adviser, Condoleezza 
Rice, an academic expert on Soviet affairs. 

One hopes her preposterous assertion is simply part of the 
administration's propaganda buildup before invading oil-rich 
Iraq. 

Truth is indeed the first casualty of war. Recall in 1990 the 
famous tearjerker about Kuwaiti babies thrown from incubators by 
evil Iraqi soldiers, a canard that ignited war fever across 
America, but turned out to be a total fabrication. Or White House 
claims to have photographic evidence of an impending Iraqi 
invasion of Saudi Arabia. These claims were also phony, but they 
succeeded in stampeding the petrified Saudis into allowing the 
U.S. to permanently station military forces in the kingdom, where 
they remain to this day. 

If Rice really believes the U.S. will bring democracy to the 
Mideast, she must also believe in the tooth fairy. Such naivete 
is unacceptable in a senior policy maker. 

Unsurprisingly, Rice's silly claim was greeted from Morocco to 
Iran with profoundest derision by the very people she aspires to 
"liberate." In fact, the Bush administration's stated goal of 
bringing democracy to the Arabs faithfully echoes claims by 
Victorian Britain's imperialists that they were conquering and 
exploiting Africa and Asia only to bring the benefits of 
Christianity and western civilization to benighted heathen. 

Fifty years ago, Middle Easterners would have believed Rice. 
After World War II, they hailed the United States as the symbol 
of honest government, decency, generosity and opposition to 
colonialism. When America's great president, Dwight Eisenhower, 
ordered the British, French and Israelis to end their 1956 
aggression against Egypt, the U.S. was a supreme hero across Asia 
and Africa. 

In the ensuing half-century, the U.S. has gone from hero to 
supreme villain. America's ever-growing support for Israel was 
half the reason, but the other half was the U.S. policy of 
keeping oil prices low, and supply high, by imposing despotic 
surrogate rulers on the region. 

The U.S. has dominated the Arab world for the past 50 years. What 
has it done to promote democracy or human rights there, Miss 
Rice? Name one democracy, one nation ruled by laws, one nation 
not run by the secret police. 

Take a tour of the Arab states under U.S. "protection." 


+ Morocco - A medieval monarchy, as brutal as Iraq, with 
thousands of political prisoners tortured and confined in 
underground dungeons. 


+ Algeria - Sunk in a nightmare civil war. When Algeria held the 
Arab world's first free vote in 1991, Islamic parties won. The 
army, backed by France and the U.S., annulled the elections and 
has ruled since. 


+ Tunisia - A military dictatorship. 


+ Egypt - Home to 40% of all Arabs, and intellectual heart of the 
Arab world, is a military dictatorship with a ruthless secret 
police. They routinely torture and murder opponents. Many 
thousands are held in political prisons, the press is censored 
and parliament is a sham. As in the case of Iran under the late 
Shah Reza Pahlavi, the FBI, CIA, and NSA all assist Egypt's 
secret police in repressing opposition and keeping the military 
regime in power. Ayman al-Zawahri, 9/11 chief planner, was 
tortured for years in Egyptian prisons. 


+ Jordan - Decent and well-run, but no democracy. The U.S.-backed 
king and his Bedouin army rule a nation that is over 60% 
Palestinian. 


+ Saudi Arabia - A feudal monarchy of 7,000 princes. Political 
opponents are muzzled or charged with drug dealing and beheaded. 
The Saudis sell oil to the U.S. and its allies on the cheap. In 
exchange, they get protection against their neighbours and their 
own people. Saudi Arabia buys billions of U.S., British and 
French arms it cannot use and keeps $100 billion in the U.S. 
financial system. Osama bin Laden claims the West steals Arab 
oil. He says oil should cost US$300 a barrel, not $20-30 - true 
terrorist talk to SUV owners. 


+ Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates - all tiny 
feudal monarchies inherited by the U.S. from the British Empire. 
Oman, another monarchy, is discreetly run by British 
intelligence, MI6. 

Arab nations not under direct or indirect U.S. domination - 
Libya, Syria, Yemen, Sudan - are also nasty dictatorships (Yemen 
less so). Lebanon is a tribal/feudal society dominated by Syria. 
Saddam's brutal Iraq was a close U.S. ally from 1979-90. 

Now, suddenly, Rice and the neo-conservatives who are pulling the 
Bush administration's strings, claim they will bring the balm of 
democracy to the wretched Arabs. 

But why now, after half a century of fostering petro-despotism? 
Why the sudden conversion on the road to Baghdad? At the very 
same time the Bush administration is busy shoring up Pakistan's 
military dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and maintaining a 
U.S.-imposed regime in chaotic, "liberated" Afghanistan whose 
leader, Hamid Karzai, must be protected by teams of U.S. 
bodyguards from his own unloving people. 

In the buildup to the 1991 war against Iraq, George Bush Sr. 
promised a Palestinian state. This time around, the whopper du 
jour is democracy and freedom for all Arabs, and especially 
Iraqis. Why, just recently, George W. Bush promised Palestinians 
democracy - provided, of course, they didn't re-elect Yasser 
Arafat. 

Eric can be reached by e-mail at 
margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com should be sent to 
editor@sunpub.com [editor@sunpub.com] or visit 

*****************************************************************
 28 New Zealand government says U.S. trade pressure won't end 
anti-nuclear policy 

policy Sun Oct 6, 9:35 PM ET 

WELLINGTON, New Zealand - U.S. officials have told New Zealand 
that its policy barring nuclear ship visits and nuclear weapons 
on its territory is hindering negotiations over a free-trade 
pact, the government said Monday. 

Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen said U.S. officials broached 
the subject tactfully with him during a visit to Washington last 
week. 

They suggested the anti-nuclear policy was a hindrance to a 
free-trade agreement, but not an insurmountable obstacle, he 
said. 

"Certainly they said that should we change our mind, that might 
assist us in getting a deal, but there was no suggestion that a 
deal wouldn't occur unless we changed our policy," Cullen told 
National Radio. 

Cullen ruled out any change to the policy, which has widespread 
support among New Zealanders. 

After the anti-nuclear law was adopted in 1985, the United States 
and Australia ejected New Zealand from a three-way military 
alliance, known as ANZUS. 

Australia retains a strong military relationship with New 
Zealand, but the United States either severed or downgraded most 
military and intelligence links. 

Cullen said previous U.S. administrations had been careful to 
keep the trade issue separated from security matters. 

"I don't think it's in the United States' interests to see trade 
policy being used as a means ... to exert pressure for strategic 
purposes," the minister said. 

He said both governments agreed that completion of the current 
Doha Round of World Trade Organization  talks was a more 
important priority than a free-trade deal between the two 
countries. 

  Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. 
*****************************************************************
 29 Fox interview various reps on Iraq

FOXNews.com
 
Sunday, October 06, 2002
 			 				 					 			   			     			     			     			 			
TONY SNOW, FOX NEWS: Democrats are divided on the issue of war 
against Iraq. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt supports the 
president, but Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone and Senate 
Majority Leader Tom Daschle still have doubts. 
			 				
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) 
			 				
U.S. SENATOR TOM DASCHLE (D-SD): In my view, there is still 
improvement that I think can be made. 
			 				
U.S. SENATOR PAUL WELLSTONE (D-MN): A preemptive, go-it-alone 
strategy toward Iraq is wrong. 
			 				
(END VIDEO CLIPS) 
			 				
SNOW: For more on this debate, we turn to Senator Evan Bayh, 
Democrat of Indiana. 
			 				
Senator Bayh, I want to read to you a quote from Zell Miller, it 
was in the Wall Street Journal the other day. He's afraid that 
your party still has the look of an anti-war party and it's going 
to pay a political price. He said, "No matter how it is 
articulated, now matter how laudable or well-intended, the 
anti-war, peace-at-almost- any-price position is a loser for 
Democrats." 
			 				
Is he right? 
			 				
SEN. EVAN BAYH (D-Ind.): Well, there's no question, Tony, if you 
look at the public opinion polls, that the majority of the 
American people tend to trust the Republican Party more on issues 
involving national security and defense than they do the 
Democratic Party. And I think we need to work to improve our 
image on that score by taking a more aggressive posture with 
regard to Iraq, empowering the president. As you know, I happen 
to agree with Dick Gephardt on this. 
			 				
So, yes, to answer your question directly, yes, I do think it's 
an issue that we need to work to improve on. 
			 				
SNOW: We've heard your majority leader say he has no doubts that 
Saddam Hussein's going to present a problem at some point, but 
he's not persuaded that we've got enough information to say with 
assurance that he's a problem right now. Is he right or wrong? 
			 				
BAYH: Well, he is a problem now, and he's likely to be a bigger 
problem in the future. One of the lessons we've learned from 
Afghanistan is that we await events at our peril. 
			 				
If we were having this same debate two years ago, Tony, and 
someone had said, look, Afghanistan's a dangerous place, there 
are terrorists there who may be attacking America, we would have 
heard a lot of the same arguments and would have missed an 
opportunity to perhaps save 3,000 lives. 
			 				
And so the final thing I'd say is, a lot of this is dealing with 
the unknown. Our intelligence is imperfect. We do know he has 
weapons of mass destruction. We do know he's caused problems in 
the past. I think he presents an unacceptable probability of 
attacking America in the future, and we should act before it's 
too late. 
			 				
SNOW: The CIA report, portions of which were leaked the other 
day, indicate that there's some confidence he'll have a nuclear 
weapon by the year 2010. Is it likely, in your opinion, that he 
would have one before then? 
			 				
BAYH: It's quite possible. 
			 				
SNOW: How? 
			 				
BAYH: Well, a couple of ways. The most dangerous scenario is that 
he would acquire some nuclear material on the black market. 
			 				
SNOW: In other words, enriched uranium or plutonium? 
			 				
BAYH: Correct. There's an unfortunate amount of that that went 
missing from Russia before Putin came in and began to exercise 
greater control. 
			 				
Saddam is now cheating on the oil-for-food program, and so he has 
about $3 billion a year to invest in weapons of mass destruction. 
			 				
So, with an unfortunate amount of nuclear material out there, $3 
billion to spend, the chances of him acquiring some of that are 
unfortunately significant. 
			 				
SNOW: Now, Tony Blair, the British prime minister, has said that 
if he were to acquire such stuff, that he could build and deploy 
a nuclear weapon in about six months. Is that right? 
			 				
BAYH: Six months to a year, if he can acquire it on the black 
market. 
			 				
Now, if he has to develop it himself, one of the reasons there's 
a big to-do about these tubes, aluminum tubes, is that he could 
construct centrifuges and make some of it internally in Iraq 
quicker than the 2010 scenario. 
			 				
But the quickest way would be to acquire it on the black market. 
And then you're probably looking at six months to a year of him 
having a nuclear device. 
			 				
SNOW: So you believe that it's urgent to act by when? 
			 				
BAYH: Oh, I think we should act sooner rather than later. I think 
we should give the president the authority to act, hopefully -- 
my argument to this to my fellow members of my party who don't 
want to take action is, if you don't want hostilities, if you 
don't want to go to war, the best way to prevent that is to give 
the president strong authority so that Saddam knows he has to 
disarm or there are going to be consequences. 
			 				
This is a man who only understands one thing, either the use of 
force or the credible threat of the use of force. That's what we 
need to present him with. 
			 				
SNOW: Senator Daschle also seems to believe that it's possible to 
get regime change without going to war. Do you agree? 
			 				
BAYH: I don't. I think they're one and the same thing. The reason 
that they're pursuing weapons of mass destruction is because of 
Saddam. It's his megalomania, his desire to project their power 
around the region, possibly project it toward us as a deterrent 
to us stopping him. So, how you would remove weapons of mass 
destruction without also changing the regime, I don't know. 
			 				
Let me say one other thing, though. I do think Tom and I agree, 
Saddam is a menace, we need to move. We have some differences in 
how we'd move, but I don't think anybody, with a few exceptions 
that Trent mentioned earlier, in our party is saying that we 
shouldn't deal with this issue. 
			 				
SNOW: Let's hear from those exceptions. David Bonior and Jim 
McDermott were over in Baghdad, and they had some things that a 
lot of people have thought are provocative to say about it. 
			 				
SNOW: Let's take a listen to some of it. 
			 				
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) 
			 				
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DAVID BONIOR (D-MI) (?): Inspections work 
better than war. That should be our goal. 
			 				
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JIM MCDERMOTT (D-WA) (?): I perhaps 
overstated my case. But the question still remains, when has the 
president proved to us that we should commit our troops to war? 
			 				
(END VIDEO CLIPS) 
			 				
SNOW: Senator Lott characterized that as the mainstream position 
of the Democratic Party. Is it? 
			 				
BAYH: No, absolutely not, Tony. I would say 99 percent of 
Democrats would disagree with certainly the latter statement 
about whether Saddam presents a threat to peaceable peoples. 
			 				
SNOW: When you heard these comments, what was your personal 
reaction? 
			 				
BAYH: I was shocked, frankly. I don't know what they hope to make 
by -- hope to gain by making those comments. 
			 				
With regard to inspections, we've been down that road before, 
and, you know, I think that's only going to give Saddam more time 
to develop his weapons. They've proven to be ineffective. We 
might try them again with teeth involved, but there needs to be a 
real enforceability clause. 
			 				
SNOW: If the U.N. doesn't act or if it attaches conditions about 
any kinds of inspections, should the United States be prepared to 
put together its own coalition and just go? 
			 				
BAYH: I think we should make every effort to bring the United 
Nations around to our point of view with a strong ultimatum to 
Saddam, disarm or face the consequences. 
			 				
If the United Nations is not willing to come along with us in 
that approach, I do think we need to put together our own 
coalition. And I think you'll be surprised at the kind of support 
that we would generate for taking action. 
			 				
SNOW: All right, let's turn to domestic politics. On the 
Democratic National Committee website there's kind of a cartoon 
that makes fun, lampoons the president's position on Social 
Security, or at least the position he had in the past, which was 
trying to allow people to invest some of their own money in 
retirement funds. I want to show you just a portion of that 
cartoon and get your reaction to it. 
			 				
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 
			 				
NARRATOR: Bush and the Republicans still want to push their 
privatization plans through Congress. And they will if you let 
them. 
			 				
(END VIDEO CLIP) 
			 				
SNOW: Is that over the line? 
			 				
BAYH: Well, it's a cartoon. I suppose showing the president 
pushing someone in a wheelchair over a cliff is a little stiff, 
but the point they're trying to make is that if funds had been 
invested in the stock market, Social Security funds over the last 
two years, those Social Security funds would have declined 
dramatically. 
			 				
Would I have chosen to make the point in quite that way? Probably 
not. But the underlying point that we're trying to make here is 
that you need to keep the "security" in the term "Social 
Security," and when you invest in higher-risk investments, you 
run the risk of undercutting that. 
			 				
SNOW: Al Gore, your former presidential candidate, made a speech 
on the economy the other day. He, like many Democrats, thinks 
that this ought to be an important issue. Again, let me play a 
clip from the former vice president and his comments. 
			 				
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) 
			 				
AL GORE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Like a lost 
driver who won't stop to ask for directions, the president 
clutches his old plan and continues racing in the wrong 
direction, farther and farther into the economic wilderness with 
the fate of nearly 300 million Americans in tow. 
			 				
(END VIDEO CLIP) 
			 				
SNOW: Is that correct? 
			 				
BAYH: That the president lacks an economic plan? Certainly the 
economy's not as good as it needs to be, Tony, and I don't think 
that there's been a coherent agenda for getting the economy 
started in the short run or in the longer term put before the 
American people. I do think that that is correct. 
			 				
SNOW: Final question. New Jersey, you swap out candidates, Bob 
Torricelli way behind. Does it strike you that your colleagues 
have managed to pull a fast one? 
			 				
BAYH: I think Senator Torricelli had a sober assessment of his 
political chances and decided to withdrawal. 
			 				
SNOW: Have you ever heard of anybody at the end say, "You know 
what, I'm going to lose, I'm going to get out of here and put in 
somebody who can win"? 
			 				
BAYH: Well, the bottom line on this is, this may be a first, but 
you know who has the final say on this, the people of the state 
of New Jersey. And if they dislike that tactic more than they 
disagree with the positions of your next guest, they can vote 
accordingly. We've got to let the people of the state of New 
Jersey decide who their senator's going to be. 
			 				
SNOW: He not only answers questions, he teases upcoming segments. 
			 				
(LAUGHTER) 
			 				
Senator Evan Bayh, thanks so much. 
			 	 	   
*****************************************************************
 30 Cullen: Nuclear Ban Pushes New Zealand Down US's Free-Trade Queue 

Mon, Oct 07, 2002     

WELLINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Finance Minister Michael Cullen said a 
senior adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush  made it clear 
that New Zealand's antinuclear ban is the key reason why 
Australia is higher in the queue for free-trade negotiations. 

Gary Edson, deputy assistant to the president for international 
economic affairs and deputy national security adviser, broached 
the issue with Cullen on his visit to the U.S. last week, 
tempering New Zealand's hopes for a speedily negotiated trade 
agreement. 

"Certainly Mr. Edson made it clear that the Australians are ahead 
in the queue because of their strategic relationship. I did point 
out that the U.S. is also talking to countries they don't have a 
strategic relationship with, but they saw fit to have trade 
discussions with them," Cullen told National Radio on Monday. 

"And certainly they said that should we change our mind, that 
might assist us in getting a deal, but there was no suggestion 
that a deal wouldn't occur unless we changed our policy. I'm sure 
they wouldn't be as crude as that," he said. 

New Zealand banned visits by nuclear powered or armed ships in 
1985, and was then downgraded to friend status from ally by the 
U.S. administration. New Zealand's exports to the U.S. would 
increase by NZ$1.7 billion a year from a free-trade agreement, 
according to a study by the Washington based Institute of 
International Economics. 

Local exporters send about NZ$5.1 billion worth of goods to the 
U.S. a year, with imports of goods from the U.S. slightly less 
than that. Cullen said the government is pressing ahead with its 
lobbying efforts in the U.S. 

"We accept Australia will be negotiating first, should the U.S. 
proceed with those negotiations, but we are very keen to 
establish that if Australia goes through the door, the door won't 
be shut," he said. 

"I think that message was carefully listened to and of course we 
are lobbying continuously in the U.S., with the administration, 
with congressmen, and with business interests who are very 
sympathetic to our cause," he said. 

The opposition National Party wants a public inquiry into the 
antinuclear law but senior government ministers have so far 
rejected that call, saying the policy won't change. 

But a National Party spokesman said Cullen's frank admission 
about the impact of the nuclear ban is a sign he wants the policy 
revisited. 

-By Stephen Wright, Dow Jones Newswires; 64-4-471-5990; 
stephen.wright@dowjones.com [stephen.wright@dowjones.com] 

Copyright © 2002 Dow Jones. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 31 No 10 confident of tough UN resolution                         

Guardian Unlimited | 

Staff and agencies Guardian Unlimited Monday October 7, 2002

        Britain is certain it will get a fresh UN resolution for 
a tough new weapons inspection regime in Iraq backed up by force 
if necessary, Downing Street said today. 

The prime minister's official spokesman said there were 
"intensive" discussions going on in New York - but cautioned 
against expecting an early decision on the text of the 
controversial motion. 

His comments came as the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, set off 
on a four-day tour, beginning in France - one of the more 
cautious permanent members of the UN security council - which 
will also take him to key Middle East states. 

The government today refused to confirm or deny that it had 
received advice from attorney general Lord Goldsmith that 
military action specifically aimed at "regime change" in Baghdad 
would be contrary to international law. 

Mr Blair's spokesman insisted: "We are confident that there will 
be another resolution.

"I can't give you a timescale for when we might see a text, there 
are intensive discussions going on in New York.

"That work is focusing on the disarmament of Saddam Hussein of 
his weapons of mass destruction. It is obviously important that 
we get the detail right, rather than that this is rushed." Mr 
Straw's whistlestop diplomacy will see him move on from Paris to 
Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan and Iran, all either neighbours of Iraq or 
key states in the region. 

Foreign Office officials said Mr Straw wanted to address 
"concerns" about Iraq in the Middle East, bringing ministers into 
"the circle of discussion" and ensuring they were briefed on what 
Britain and the US believe is evidence of Iraq's chemical, 
biological and nuclear weapons programme.

Mr Straw will argue that there is not a choice between dealing 
with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Iraq, but that the 
international community must deal with both urgently for the sake 
of the stability and prosperity of the region.

He will also attempt to hammer home the message that the UN's 
authority is at stake if it does not take effective action 
against President Saddam. Speaking about his visit, he told the 
BBC: "The views of each of these countries is pretty well stated. 
They are these: each of these countries has reason to fear 
Saddam. Three of them - Jordan, Kuwait and Iran - have been the 
subject of military action by Saddam. 

"Egypt is also worried about the long-term instability caused to 
the region and the way in which Iraq helps the under-development 
of the Arab region. They are worried about that.

"At the same time, they do want to see, I know, better progress 
being made on the peace process between the Israelis and 
Palestinians."

Mr Straw said he could discern movement within the Palestinian 
camp which might hold out hope for the future.

"What we have to do in what is a very difficult and depressing 
situation is try to identify those areas where progress can be 
made," he said. "There has been some progress in reform of the 
institutions of the Palestinian Authority in recent months. 

"Many of the leaders below [Yasser] Arafat understand that the 
way Chairman Arafat has run the Palestinian Authority has not 
been satisfactory, either for the reputation of the Palestinians 
abroad or, above all, for the quality and standards of life of 
the Palestinians themselves." 

The EU's high representative Javier Solana was in Israel 
yesterday and was due to meet Mr Arafat today as part of a joint 
effort by the EU, US, UN and Russia to restart the peace process, 
he said. 
	 	
[UP]    	 	 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 
*****************************************************************
 32 Scarboro sampling draft report deadline extended 
 
 The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News --

Monday, October 7, 2002

The deadline for commenting on the Scarboro sampling draft report 
has been extended to Nov. 22.

 Copies of the draft report are available at the Scarboro 
Community Center and the Oak Ridge Public Library.

 Comments should be sent to Constance Jones, U.S. EPA, Region 4, 
61 Forsyth St. SW, Atlanta, GA 30303.

 Jones will give a presentation at the Citizens Advisory 
Committee meeting to be held at 5:15 p.m. Tuesday at 102 
Robertsville Road.

 Two public meetings are planned for November. The final report 
is planned for release in January.


 [http://www.oakridger.com] All Contents ©Copyright The Oak 
Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 33 Layoffs expected from accelerated cleanup program 
 
The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News --

Monday, October 7, 2002

by R. Cathey Daniels Oak Ridger staff 

The accelerated cleanup program will likely mean a reduced 
workforce for Bechtel Jacobs, though company officials today 
would not specify the scope of any planned layoffs.

 In an internal memo from company president Steve Liedle to all 
employees, posted Oct. 3, Liedle stated the following:

 "The new skill mixes required to implement the closure plan may 
result in reductions in force in some areas. However, any such 
reductions are expected to be minimal."

 Officials this morning would not define what is meant by 
"minimal," nor say which areas of the workforce would be most 
affected, nor state what percentage of the workforce would be 
laid off.

 "It's possible, and it will be minimal," said Dennis Hill, 
company spokesman.

 When asked whether layoffs are expected to hit middle management 
positions hardest, Hill said he did not know and "that is yet to 
be determined... ."

 "The impact on employment is not expected to be significant," 
said Hill. "It's not going to be massive layoffs or anything like 
that."

 Hill also declined to define "massive."

 "We've got to realign, so we'll do what we need to do," said 
Hill. "It doesn't look like it's going to have a huge impact on 
employment."

 Liedle stated that management has been "streamlined" into three 
support categories for the cleanup program, each headed by a 
"closure project manager." The new structure became effective 
Oct. 1, according to Liedle.

 "As you are aware, Bechtel Jacobs Company is reorganizing to 
better align itself to perform under DOE's accelerated cleanup 
and closure mission," stated Liedle.

 He noted that a series of meetings will be held later in October 
"to provide additional detail" about the "changes associated with 
the accelerated cleanup plan."

 Bechtel Jacobs currently employs just under 1,000 workers. 
That's down from the 1,800 workers from Lockheed Martin and 200 
new hires from Bechtel Jacobs when the company took over the 
management and integration contract in April 1998.

 At that time the contract goal of the company was to reduce its 
core workforce to approximately 450 workers at the three sites, 
Oak Ridge, Portsmouth and Paducah. Work was to be subcontracted 
to other companies for environmental management.

 However, said Hill, that goal was dropped when the company "got 
into the meat of the work" and it was found that "some 
adjustments had to be made in order to get the work done the way 
DOE wanted it to get done." A decision was made for more work to 
be "self-performed," said Hill.

 The accelerated cleanup program is the newest wrinkle in 
Department of Energy environmental cleanup missions. It has been 
criticized for bumping against an established DOE mission, that 
of reindustrialization, but Energy Department officials have said 
the two missions can be compatible.

 The accelerated cleanup program also is roundly criticized for 
setting too aggressive a schedule for complex cleanup problems, 
and concerns have been raised that the program will create more 
local expense for long-term stewardship of cleanup not addressed 
in the accelerated schedule.

 Agreements have been signed with the state, the Environmental 
Protection Agency and DOE's Oak Ridge Operations site office to 
clean high-risk areas quickly. The DOE has agreed to send 
approximately $105 million to Oak Ridge for closure of the K-25 
site, completion of cleanup work at Melton Valley, and other 
reservation high-risk cleanup. Those funds are about $45 million 
over the original amount set for allocation.

 R. Cathey Daniels can be contacted at (865) 220-5515 or 
danielsrcd@oakridger.com.

          [http://www.oakridger.com/contact/index.html] 

 [http://www.oakridger.com] All Contents ©Copyright The Oak 
Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 34 DOE hearing allows public to comment on nuke site 

 Amarillo Globe-News: Local News: 

10/06/02
 
By Jim McBride And Greg Rohloff jmcbride@amarillonet.com 
[jmcbride@amarillonet.com] grohloff@amarillonet.com 
[grohloff@amarillonet.com] 

The public will have a chance to comment Tuesday night on a 
proposal to consider the Pantex Plant for a plutonium production 
facility to make weapons cores for nuclear warheads.

 Energy Department hearings on the proposed facility will be from 
7 to 10 p.m. Tuesday at Amarillo College's College Union 
Building, Oak Room, 24th Avenue and Jackson Street.

 The public meeting will let the public present comments, ask 
questions and discuss issues with representatives from the DOE's 
National Nuclear Security Administration.

 Besides Pantex, other possible sites include the Waste Isolation 
Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, N.M.; Los Alamos National Laboratory 
in New Mexico, the Nevada Test Site and the Savannah River Site 
in South Carolina.

 The DOE hearings are the first step in carrying out government 
recommendations to develop a modern capability to manufacture 
plutonium pits, the triggers for nuclear warheads. The proposed 
$4 billion plutonium production facility would employ about 1,500 
people, and the DOE hopes to have it running by 2020.

 Jeri Osborne, a Pantex neighbor, said she is opposed to the 
proposed facility and doubts that the government needs to build a 
new production facility. She also cited contamination problems at 
other sites that have produced nuclear warheads or other 
radioactive weapons components.

 "We've got lots and lots of pits out there, and some of those 
certainly could be reused. And Los Alamos has the capability to 
make them. I don't see any need for it at all," she said. "And I 
certainly don't want plutonium produced out here. That's nasty 
stuff. Rocky Flats, Hanford, Oak Ridge you name it."

 Mike Bourn, president of the Amarillo Economic Development 
Corp., said a strong selling point for Pantex is that this is 
where new pits would be used in the assembly process.

 "You lessen the need to transport them around the country," 
Bourn said.

 In scouting out the possibility of a pit production plant being 
opened here, Bourn said the economics of such a project make it 
attractive, starting with the $500 million needed to build the 
facility, and moving to the 150 to 300 people who would staff the 
plant.

 "Those would be highly trained, highly skilled and highly paid 
positions," he said.

 Because the support and administrative personnel are mostly in 
place, a new plant could be started here for a lower cost than 
elsewhere, he said.

 A prime concern, though, is the need for reassurances that a new 
plant would have sufficient environmental safeguards to keep the 
plutonium waste stream out of the groundwater supplies, Bourn 
said.

 Safety for workers and neighbors are priorities, he said.

 While Los Alamos has produced pits on a test basis in recent 
years, the laboratory is geared more to research than production. 
Pantex has a production mentality, he said.

 As for security questions, Bourn praised the security staff, 
noting its recent successes in national competitions against 
other DOE security personnel.

 Doris Smith, another Pantex neighbor, said she won't be able to 
testify at Tuesday's hearings and questioned the need to place a 
plutonium production facility in a populated area that produces 
crops vital to the nation's agriculture needs.

 She also questioned whether Pantex will be a viable candidate 
for the new facility.

 "They don't have the technical expertise. They have all of this 
at the other sites," she said. "How many of these nuclear bombs 
do we need? Look at the number that we already have. It only 
would take one or two weapons for us to cause mass destruction in 
any area, and then we also would suffer from the consequences."

 Don Hancock, director of the Southwest Research &Information 
Center in Albuquerque, N.M., said he thinks the DOE ultimately 
will choose between the Nevada Test Site or the Savannah River 
Site for a pit production plant.

 "If you were choosing a place, Pantex would not be high on the 
list," Hancock said, recalling hearings about 10 years ago when 
Pantex's lack of adequate room and potential damage to 
groundwater were reasons to dismiss Pantex from consideration for 
a pit production facility then.

 None of those reasons has changed, Hancock said, and since then, 
the Department of Energy has acknowledged weaknesses in Pantex 
security.

 Because the Los Alamos National Laboratory does not want the 
production site, and federal law prohibits the Waste Isolation 
Pilot Plant site near Carlsbad, N.M., from being used for 
anything other than low-level waste storage, that leaves DOE with 
a choice of Savannah River or the Nevada Test Site, which also 
has been designated as the high-level waste repository for the 
nuclear industry.

 Hancock, a longtime critic of the nation's nuclear weapons 
program and its environmental record, said he would probably 
submit written comments to this round of hearings but prepare 
testimony for the draft environmental statement hearings round 
later.
 
1996-2002 Amarillo Globe-News
*****************************************************************
 35 EPA proposal repeats work, plants believe - 

The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Monday, October 07, 2002

Chemical plants and utilities, including some in western 
Kentucky, say the security rules would just repeat Homeland 
rules. 

By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650
 
Thirty business and industrial groups nationwide have urged the 
Senate to drop proposed new legislation giving the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency greater security oversight of 
public and private chemical facilities. Officials of local plants 
and utilities that have large chemical inventories say they are 
concerned about the potential operational and cost effects of 
legislation that some think duplicates the Bioterrorism Act 
passed earlier this year. 

As a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Paducah Water Works 
already has spent about $75,000 on security upgrades — fencing, 
gates, cameras, motion alarms, lighting and signs — at its 
distribution plant and other parts of the system, General Manager 
Glen Anderson said. An additional $25,000 could be spent meeting 
stringent terrorism-vulnerability assessments required by the 
previous act, he said. 

Anderson said the Paducah system is part of the American Water 
Works Association, which believes the new proposal essentially 
duplicates the Bioterrorism Act. 

"To have to do another assessment and have other deadlines and 
components that surely would be different from the Bioterrorism 
Act makes no sense to us," he said. 

The new legislation would "splinter security responsibility" from 
the Department of Homeland Security and grant the EPA "extensive 
new authority that may be detrimental to advancing our nation's 
critical infrastructure security," the 30 associations said in an 
Aug. 29 letter to Congress. Opposition includes the American Farm 
Bureau, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of 
Chemical Distributors and the U.S. Oil and Gas Association. 

Last week, congressional debate intensified over attaching the 
new bill, proposed by Sen. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., to the huge 
Homeland Security Act. This week, legislative sources said the 
measure may take a back seat until after Congress reconvenes next 
year. 

Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Louisville, and Jim Bunning, 
R-Southgate, as well as Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Hopkinsville, have 
not taken stances on the legislation, their aides say. There is 
no comparable legislation in the House. 

McConnell issued a statement saying homeland security is 
critical, but he advocates a "consensus position that improves 
the safety of chemical plants by linking cooperatively with 
existing state, local and private security sources." 

The bill would greatly expand EPA’s oversight of plants with 
hazardous materials. Some industrial groups say it could unfairly 
give the agency power to determine which chemicals are used, how 
they are used and which products are produced. 

Gary Shemwell, manager of administration at Westlake Group in 
Calvert City, said his and other plants have spent considerable 
time and money upgrading security as a result of the 2001 
attacks. 

"We have general information about the bill, but we don't have 
specifics," he said. "From what we've seen, we think plant 
security should remain with the Department of Homeland Security." 

In a Sept. 5 letter to colleagues, Corzine said security at many 
chemical plants is inadequate. Citing EPA information, he said 
there are 123 plants in 24 states where an accident "could expose 
more than 1 million people to highly toxic chemicals. Corzine 
said there are nearly 3,000 plants in 49 states where an accident 
"could threaten more than 10,000 people." 

In January, a fire accompanying an accidental release of about 
10,000 pounds of chlorine and vinyl chloride at Westlake 
threatened residents downwind in Livingston County. Federal 
health officials said it was very unlikely the trouble caused 
more than minor problems for healthy neighbors, but those with 
existing health problems would have been at greater risk if 
exposed. 

Amy Ridenour, president of the conservative National Center for 
Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., attacked the new bill 
in an editorial on her organization's Web site, www. 
nationalcenter.org. 

She said that earlier this summer, the radical environmental 
group Greenpeace posted color maps obtained from the EPA on the 
Internet showing chemical plants near large U.S. cities. The 
group claimed terrorist attacks on them would shroud the 
surrounding area in a deadly mist of toxic ingredients. 

One of the plants most prominently publicized was a Kuehne 
Chemical bleach factory in South Kearney, N.J., a few miles from 
Manhattan and in Corzine’s home state, she said. Greenpeace said 
a terrorist attack on the Kuehne facility could unleash a cloud 
of chlorine and sulfur that might cover a radius of 25 miles and 
jeopardize the lives or health of about 12 million people, she 
said. 

Although the FBI managed to persuade a reluctant EPA bureaucracy 
to remove the toxic chemical disclosures rather than give 
terrorists an advantage, the data and maps were downloaded by 
Greenpeace and posted on its Web site, she said. 

Mark Donham, chairman of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant 
citizens' advisory committee, said he doesn't have enough 
information about the Corzine bill to make a judgment. He said 
the terrorism risks to chemical plants are real, but he isn't 
sure the nation "can afford" the hundreds of billions spent on 
increased security measures for airlines, the nuclear industry, 
border protection "and now chemical plants." 

"I can't see us climbing back from this under the same old way of 
doing things," said Donham, president of the Regional Association 
of Concerned Environmentalists. "So I wonder if it's not going to 
take something more unusual, maybe thinking out of the box." 

He said the United States needs to rethink its energy policies 
and its Middle Eastern oil policy to relax tension in hopes of 
reducing terrorism. Elizabeth Stuckle, spokeswoman for USEC Inc., 
which operates the diffusion plant, said it was premature to 
discuss the bill. The plant has large inventories of chlorine and 
other chemicals. 

"We're still watching this carefully," she said, "and studying 
what effect it might or might not have on us." 

*****************************************************************
 36 Nuclear Test Readiness at Risk, DOE Reports

 Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today: 

Christine Kucia [%20ckucia@armscontrol.org] 

The Energy Department’s ability to resume full-scale nuclear 
testing within 36 months is at risk due to the loss of 
experienced employees, dismantled facilities, and unusable 
equipment, according to a report by the department’s Office of 
Inspector General (IG). The department is required to be able to 
conduct a nuclear test within three years of receiving an order 
from the president to resume testing.
 
The report, released September 9, harshly criticized the 
department’s National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) 
management of the test readiness program, noting a significant 
lack of planning to fill key roles and update equipment. The 
audit asserted that NNSA “did not have a comprehensive plan or 
methodology in place to address its most significant test-related 
concerns.” 

Lack of personnel with testing experience was a chief problem 
listed in the report, which cited a 50 percent loss of such 
employees in the past five years. Physical assets, such as 
computer equipment and diagnostic tools used during testing, are 
in disrepair or obsolete. In addition, computer modeling to 
determine the site’s readiness has not been updated to reflect 
changes in personnel, facilities, and safety requirements over 
the last 10 years.
 
In an accompanying memorandum addressing the report’s findings, 
NNSA Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs Everet H. Beckner 
defended the agency, saying, “NNSA is confident that the weapons 
complex could resume testing on a time scale appropriate” to deal 
with any potential problem. Other Energy Department management 
comments noted that the audit focused only on the Nevada Test 
Site’s preparedness when it is the national weapons laboratories 
that have the greatest technical capabilities to conduct nuclear 
tests.
 
The IG report was issued as Congress contemplates reducing the 
time required to resume nuclear testing as part of the FY 2003 
defense authorization and appropriations bills. Both the Senate 
and the House of Representatives approved $15 million to enhance 
test readiness, but only the House authorization bill calls for 
the ability to resume underground nuclear weapons testing within 
12 months. 

Given the current state of the test site’s facilities and annual 
funding level of $10 million, it would be “an ever greater 
challenge to meet a smaller window” of test readiness time, 
according to an Energy official familiar with the report.
 
The audit was conducted from September 2001 to July 2002 and 
involved interviews with over 70 current and former employees, 
visits to the Nevada Test Site and the North Las Vegas Facility, 
and reviews of policies and procedures. 

© 2001 Arms Control Association, 1726 M Street, NW; Washington, 
DC; 20036; Tel: (202) 463-8270; Fax: (202) 463-8273
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************