***************************************************************** 03/12/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.64 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Italy govt may allow ENEL to buy foreign nuclear plants - report 2 Nuclear power industry wants to extend working life of power 3 US: Exposing Your Superiors For the Bunch of Rapacious, Lying Weasel 4 Finish debate on Nuclear energy NUCLEAR REACTORS 5 US: Hole found in reactor cap at Ohio nuclear plant 6 US: Tighter security sought at N-plants 7 US: Hole Found in Nuclear Reactor Cap 8 US: Davis-Besse reactor repair will take until late in April 9 US: Close airspace over reactors, Specter says 10 US: Peach Bottom station topic of public meeting NUCLEAR SAFETY 11 Depleted uranium soils battlefields 12 UK: Veterans reject depleted uranium shell claims 13 Depleted uranium may stop kidneys "in days" 14 Georgia vulnerable to transit of nuclear components - official 15 Radioactive rod found in scrap 16 UK: Depleted uranium soils battlefields 17 Depleted Uranium May Cause Damage 18 US: Officials: Levels of beryllium at NLV offices within safety stan 19 Uranium weapons health warning 20 US: Harmful beryllium detected in North Las Vegas office 21 US: Hazmat Drill Gains New Urgency in N.Va. 22 Uranium tests for Kosovo and Gulf troops 23 Two men detained with radioactive, narcotic substances in NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 24 AU: Nuclear dump outcry set to be ignored 25 US: EDITORIAL: Yucca Mountain: The Nation's Hot Spot 26 US: Letter: Yucca repository will not benefit local residents NUCLEAR WEAPONS 27 US: SCHEER, ROBERT: "THE FALLOUT OF DESPERATION" 28 Journalists support Pasko 29 Russian foreign minister calls for further clarification of US 30 Russian defence minister denies nuclear arms cooperation with 31 Russian Official Had Dual Role in Uranium Pact 32 US: Bush's New Nuclear Weapon Plan: A Shot at Nonproliferation 33 Gulf News says: Their own worst enemy 34 US: U.S. tries to ease global anxieties over nuclear plan 35 US: Nuclear Use as 'Option' Clouds Issue 36 US: Put up yer nukes 37 'Sound military conceptual planning ' ... of a nuclear war 38 Iran: Khatami expresses concern at US nuclear threat 39 UK: Itchy fingers on the trigger 40 WAR AND TERROR: THE NEXT PHASE: Pentagon still sees nuclear arms 41 NZ: Editorial: Keep the nuclear umbrella furled 42 US: Nuclear Threat in 1995 Went Unheeded 43 Strike Two: threats made against Iraq 44 Analysis: Why the US won't let go 45 Nuclear installations not safe, says JUI 46 US: Cheney calms nations on nukes 47 US: Our evolving nuclear posture 48 New Zealand minister warns USA to stick with nuclear disarmament 49 EDITORIAL Nuclear specter 50 Nuclear study not alarming to Seoul 51 China Demands Official and More Clear Explanation on US Nuclear Weap 52 US: 'Nuclear posture' no use against 'terror' 53 South Korea seeks to confirm US nuclear posture report 54 US: Pentagon Nuclear Plan Obtuse, Unwise and Immoral - US Analyst 55 Russian Official Had Dual Role in Uranium Pact 56 U.S. and Uzbekistan Cooperate on Nonproliferation Agreement 57 US: The secret bomb squad - 58 US: Powell defends nuclear planning US DEPT. OF ENERGY 59 Livermore lab director offers priority 'A-list' 60 Closure of old nuclear plant slowed 61 STRICKLAND CONDEMNS DOE DECISION TO IGNORE LAW REGARDING URANIUM 62 Modernization of Y-12 OK'd 63 Researchers' task to confirm 'bubble fusion' 64 Man arrested after going through Y-12 checkpoint 65 DOE to reveal part of data in Paducah ruling 66 The Bill Madia Show See it and believe in ORNL's -- and Oak OTHER NUCLEAR 67 Brilliant scientist at the heart of the development of Britain's 68 Fission-powered rockets could help open up the solar system’s ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Italy govt may allow ENEL to buy foreign nuclear plants - report AFX Europe; Mar 12, 2002 MILAN (AFX) - The Italian government and its parliamentary majority are studying the possibility of giving ENEL SpA the right to buy stakes in foreign companies that own nuclear power plants, the daily MF said citing the chairman of the parliament's lower house public works and environment committee, Pietro Armani. The daily said ENEL does not have the right to buy stakes in foreign nuclear power plants since a referendum abolished nuclear power in Italy about 15 years ago. Armani said he will present a bill to that effect, adding that under the current legislation ENEL would have to sell the two nuclear power plants owned by Ceske Energeticke Zavody AS, were it to buy the Czech energy group. pw/cml ***************************************************************** 2 Nuclear power industry wants to extend working life of power stations by 20 years (La industria nuclear quiere prolongar en 20 anos la vida util de las centrales) El Pais - Spain; Mar 11, 2002 The Spanish nuclear power industry forum wants to extend the working life of the six power stations which are operating in the country from 40 to 60 years. This initiative is similar to that recently approved in the USA. Eduardo Gonzalez, the new chairman of the forum, said that the first Spanish power station opened in 1968, which means that it could close in 2008, something which the industry is keen to avoid. The forum is hoping that the government will take decisions aimed at stimulating the nuclear power industry from 2005 onwards, which is when the government is to debate whether the working life of power stations should be extended. Abstracted from El Pais ***************************************************************** 3 Exposing Your Superiors For the Bunch of Rapacious, Lying Weasels That They Are Business 2.0 - Magazine Article - whistle-blowing A Practical Guide: Would you be ready to blow the whistle? By Susan Orenstein, April 2002 Issue On Wings of Gadflies Back in 1995, Mark Graf, a security specialist at the Rocky Flats nuclear facility outside Denver, became alarmed about the temporary removal of 450 kilograms of plutonium oxide from a vaultlike room to a "soft room" protected by drywall that you could punch a hole through. "It was insane," says Graf, who was ordered to help install a temporary alarm system in case anyone tried to steal the radioactive material. "I'm talking 1,000 pounds of plutonium," he says. For comparison, it took 10 pounds of plutonium to make the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. So Graf spoke up to his superiors. And soon there were few moments when he wasn't thinking about Rocky Flats. He wasn't sleeping. He became obsessed with doomsday scenarios. He penned letter after letter. He sought out lawyers. He started taping many of his conversations. He burned through $15,000 of his own savings. His wife threatened to leave him. In short, he had become a typical whistle-blower. The Enron scandal, replete with one executive after another claiming to have known nothing of the company's devious accounting, has sparked a celebration of whistle-blowers -- particularly Sherron Watkins, the former Enron employee whose nationally televised congressional testimony brilliantly eviscerated that company's top executives. But being a whistle-blower has more to do with stamina than stage presence. Long before folks like Graf and Watkins catch the media's attention, they grapple with complex feelings about work and loyalty and confront a slew of practical decisions about whom to trust, how to protect themselves against retaliation, and when to go public. It can be a grueling, emotionally difficult path, but if you feel compelled to flag an injustice, Graf's story may hold invaluable lessons -- and even a smidgen of hope. First of all, forget the Norma Rae images of an outspoken crusader. Whistle-blowers tend not to be rebels or reformers; strangely enough, they can be corporate loyalists who genuinely look for the company to remedy ills. Graf fits that profile. He grew up in a suburb of Denver and was "very close to law enforcement," as he says. (His best friend's father was the local sheriff.) "I was a Young Republican, for God's sake," Graf says. April 2002 Magazine Contents ©2002 Business 2.0 Media Inc. ***************************************************************** 4 Finish debate on Nuclear energy Letter Modern life Sir,I am writing with reference to the letter :"Wind, solar and bio-energy," by Patrcia Lorenx, Brussels, Belgium (March 5). Patrcia Lorenx has rightly raised concerns about Finland’s nuclear energy programme. Before we consider nuclear power, we must remember the near catastrophic accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The most famous US nuclear accident took place just two weeks after the release of anti-nuclear film The China Syndrome, starring Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon. When the film was released, it was immediately attacked by the nuclear industry for depicting an impossible situation. Yet on 28 March 1979, a series of failures and operator mistakes turned an equipment malfunction at Three Mile Island, near Harrsburg, Pennsylvania into a drama that mirrored many of the scenes of The China Syndrome. As Time magazine commented at the time: "Reassuring statements spewed from the plants press spokesmen, sounding as if they were taken right out of the script for The China Syndrome." As the accident progressed, it became clear that no one had any idea what to do. The Kemeny Commission set up by President Jimmy Carter to investigate the accident later found that complacency had so pervaded the industry that "we are convinced that an accident like Three Mile Island was eventually inevitable." It judged that a meltdown had been avoided through sheer luck. Or, as one witness put it: "Bells were ringing, lights were flashing, and everyone was grabbing and scratching." Two days after the start of the accident, Harold Denton, a senior official of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), told the commissioners that they should start evacuating people before a serious escape of radioactivity. Yet, a day later they had done little about it. Most people took it to themselves and fled the area. Similarly, the Soviets scientists and engineers - like their counterparts in the West - were confident that there was no danger in the nuclear energy. In 1985, a year before Chernobyl, the staff at the plant were interviewed for Soviet Life an official English language magazine for distribution in the United States to readers who had grown sceptical after the near meltdown at Three Mile Island. Nikolai Fomin, Chernobyl’s chief engineer, assured the world that his plant was "completely safe" for both people and the environment." Boris Chernov, a turbine operator, assured his interlocutors: "There is more emotion in fear of nuclear power plants than real danger." The article in Soviet Life kept returning to - as though preoccupied by - the question of safety. Vitali Skiyerov, the Ukrainian power minister told the visiting journalists: "The environment is securely protected. Hermetically sealed buildings, closed cycles for technological process with radioactive agents and systems for purification and harmless waste disposal, preclude any discharge into the external environment." Vladimir Voloshko, the mayor of the town where the reactor is located, even sounded an environmental note while talking about car-parking problems: "We don’t want the cars to squeeze out the people. We believe the town should be as safe and clean as the power plant." The rest belong to history. When he was in Moscow in 1979, just after Three Mile Island, the Governor of Pennsylvania, Dick Thornborough, made, it seems, an astute analogy between the members of the Soviet nuclear establishment and enthusiasts of nuclear power in the West. He was right to wonder whether the March 1979 accident at Three Mile Island would make a difference in the Soviet Union. Would the unbridled enthusiasm for nuclear power of the Soviet specialists be moved by questions of safety raised by a serious accident - particularly if it happened on their own doorstep? The question remains germane today. Mahmood Elahi, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada| ***************************************************************** 5 Hole found in reactor cap at Ohio nuclear plant Sun-Sentinel: News Local By JOHN SEEWER Associated Press Posted March 12 2002, 12:25 PM EST TOLEDO, Ohio -- An acid leak inside a nuclear power plant ate a hole 6 inches deep into a steel cap that covers the plant's reactor vessel, federal inspectors said. The hole, which was stopped by a layer impervious to the acid, does not pose a safety threat, said Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Jan Strasma. If the acid had penetrated the massive cap and allowed steam to escape, safety systems would have immediately cooled the reactor, he said. And while the steam would contain some radioactive material, it would have been confined by the reactor containment building. Even if steam had escaped from the building, there would have been no danger to the public, Strasma said. ``It's only when you get into the what-ifs that you would have had any leakage from the reactor cooling system,'' Strasma said Tuesday. ``There was no hazard,'' he said earlier. ``It's certainly very unusual. It's a deterioration of a very important safety feature.'' The regulatory commission has alerted the nation's 102 other commercial nuclear plants to watch for similar problems. It said this was the most extensive corrosion ever found on top of a U.S. nuclear plant reactor. The hole was discovered last week while the Davis-Besse nuclear plant was shut down for normal refueling and maintenance. It could have been slowly leaking for years, Strasma said. Trace amounts of boric acid, a byproduct of the nuclear fission process inside the reactor, are believed to have dribbled onto the cap from at least one of the reactor's 69 control rods. The acid did not penetrate an inner layer of the cap, only about three-eighths of an inch thick, because that layer of steel is impervious to boric acid, said Richard Wilkins, a spokesman for FirstEnergy Corp., the plant's operator. ``We were not expecting to see that extent of corrosion,'' he told The Blade of Toledo. ``This has not been seen in the industry before.'' The corrosion problem will keep the plant closed an extra month, Wilkins said. The plant, located along Lake Erie and about 25 miles east of Toledo, has been shut down since mid-February. The utility said it would remain shut down until at least late April. Plant officials discovered the corrosion during repairs to five control rod nozzles after cracks were found earlier during the shutdown. The corrosion appears linked to at least one of those two leaking nozzles or to aging weld seams surrounding them, Wilkins said. FirstEnergy plans to install a new reactor head during the plant's next refueling shutdown in 2004, Wilkins said. Copyright © 2002, South Florida Sun-Sentinel ***************************************************************** 6 Tighter security sought at N-plants TheDay.com: Tuesday | March 12 Terrorist threat dictates new standards, Union of Concerned Scientists says By Paul Choiniere - More Articles Published on 03/12/2002 Relaxed regulations have left nuclear power plants needlessly vulnerable to terrorist attacks, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, which called Monday for stricter rules on emergency backup power systems and on the handling of spent nuclear fuel. The request for regulation changes came in the form of a petition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the process by which the public can request changes in federal nuclear policy. The petition will be submitted to a review board for consideration. Nuclear plants are dependent on power flowing in from utility lines to operate the water circulation system that cools the reactor and generates electricity. If that flow of power is lost, emergency diesel fuel generators take over the job. If those generators become unavailable, a reactor meltdown could occur. Given the increased terrorist threat following the Sept. 11 attacks, the Union of Concerned Scientists contends that the potential for a terrorist attack on the power lines supplying electricity to nuclear plants has to be taken more seriously. “The transmission lines and substations constituting the electrical grid are virtually unprotected targets for terrorists,” the organization said in its petition. “Terrorists would not have to penetrate security fences or overpower armed guards to blow up transmission towers. Likewise, the switchyard at the typical nuclear power plant is outside the security perimeter fences and a relatively softer target than the nuclear plant itself.” Diesel generators should still be available to provide power after an attack. Older plants may have two generators ready for service, some newer plants as many as five. Original specifications for nuclear plants stated that no plant could operate for more than 72 hours without its full complement of diesel generators. If an emergency generator could not be returned to service by then, the reactor had to be shut down. In recent years, the industry has persuaded the NRC to relax that standard for many plants, contending that even with a generator down enough power would be available from the remaining generator or generators to keep the reactor safe. In many cases, nuclear utilities now have up to 14 days to return a generator to service. Millstone 2 at Millstone Power Station in Waterford was granted such a change this year. David Lochbaum, an engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said it makes no sense to ease such a regulation. In its petition, the group seeks a return to the 72-hour rule. Pete Hyde, a spokesman for Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, which owns Millstone, said the company would not comment on the merits of the petition. Hyde said Millstone is prepared to fully cooperate with any changes ordered by the NRC. Lengthening the time that diesel generators can be out of service has helped the industry keep reactors operating, said Lochbaum. Maintenance work on diesel generators that once could only be done while a reactor was shut down for refueling can now be done while the reactor is operating, even if it takes two weeks. Keeping reactors operating and reducing the length of refueling outages are key factors in making nuclear plants competitive in a deregulated energy market. In its petition, the Union of Concerned Scientists also asks for new standards for spent fuel pool operations. These pools are used to store and cool uranium-filled fuel rods after they are removed from the reactor. At some facilities, the superheated fuel rods could cause storage pools to boil in as few as eight hours if cooling systems were lost, causing a release of radiation, Lochbaum said. Lochbaum's organization wants a rule that storage pools be managed in such a way that no boiling could occur for 24 hours, even if cooling systems were lost. That would provide more opportunity for emergency steps to be taken to stabilize the pool following a terrorist attack. Such a change could mean moving fuel into the pool more gradually during a refueling, delaying a restart by a day or two, Lochbaum said. The Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the interests of the nuclear industry, has no comment on the petition, said spokesman Melanie Lyons. p.choiniere@theday.com © 1998-2002 The Day Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 7 Hole Found in Nuclear Reactor Cap Las Vegas SUN Today: March 12, 2002 at 16:20:26 PST TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) - An acid leak inside a nuclear power plant ate a hole 6 inches deep into a steel cap that covers the plant's reactor vessel, federal inspectors said. The hole, which was stopped by a layer impervious to the acid, does not pose a safety threat, said Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Jan Strasma. If the acid had penetrated the massive cap and allowed steam to escape, safety systems would have immediately cooled the reactor, he said. While the steam would contain some radioactive material, it would have been confined by the reactor containment building. Even if steam had escaped from the building, there would have been no danger to the public, Strasma said. "It's only when you get into the what-ifs that you would have had any leakage from the reactor cooling system," Strasma said Tuesday. "There was no hazard," he said. "It's certainly very unusual. It's a deterioration of a very important safety feature." The regulatory commission is investigating to determine the cause and whether similar conditions could exist at other plants. The commission has also alerted the nation's 102 other commercial nuclear plants to watch for similar problems. It said this was the most extensive corrosion ever found on top of a U.S. nuclear plant reactor. The hole was discovered last week while the Davis-Besse nuclear plant was shut down for normal refueling and maintenance. It could have been slowly leaking for years, Strasma said. Trace amounts of boric acid, a byproduct of the nuclear fission process inside the reactor, are believed to have dribbled onto the cap from at least one of the reactor's 69 control rods. The acid did not penetrate an inner layer of the cap, only about three-eighths of an inch thick, because that layer of steel is impervious to boric acid, said Richard Wilkins, a spokesman for FirstEnergy Corp., the plant's operator. "We didn't expect to find it to advance as far as it had," he said Tuesday, adding that this much corrosion had not been seen in the industry before. The corrosion problem will keep the plant closed an extra month, Wilkins said. The plant, located along Lake Erie and about 25 miles east of Toledo, has been shut down since mid-February. The utility said it would remain shut down until at least late April. "We know this can be repaired," Wilkins said. "We're confident the fix will be the right one." Plant officials discovered the corrosion during repairs to five control rod nozzles after cracks were found earlier during the shutdown. The corrosion appears linked to at least one of those two leaking nozzles or to aging weld seams surrounding them, Wilkins said. FirstEnergy plans to install a new reactor head during the plant's next refueling shutdown in 2004, Wilkins said. The company said a new reactor cannot be installed now because it will take months to build. "That's absolutely unacceptable," said Paul Gunter, a spokesman for the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an industry watchdog group. "They're going to risk public health and safety." The group wants the commission to shut down the plant until a new reactor can be installed. On the Net: http://www.nrc.gov [http://www.nrc.gov] http://www.firstenergycorp.com [http://www.firstenergycorp.com] All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 8 Davis-Besse reactor repair will take until late in April 03/12/02 John Funk Plain Dealer Reporter The cracks in parts of a critical safety mechanism at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in Port Clinton have caused more damage than inspectors anticipated. The discovery has added a month - to the end of April - to the time the reactor will be out of commission. The cracks were discovered two weeks ago during an inspection after FirstEnergy Corp. shut down the reactor in February for refueling. Company spokesman Richard Wilkins said yesterday that the cracks are in stainless steel sleeves that allow the control rods to pass through the head of the reactor. The rods, made of boron, regulate the rate of fission in the reactor core, which operates at 625 degrees Fahrenheit and 2,150 pounds per square inch of pressure. One of three cracked sleeves allowed the water-boric acid solution in the reactor core to get past the head's stainless steel liner - and eat a hole almost through the 6-inch-thick carbon steel head, he said. Company and Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspectors are still examining cracks in two other sleeves, and may find further damage, Wilkins said. FirstEnergy has ordered a new head but is also trying to repair the damaged head and restart the reactor by the end of April, he said. The dome-shaped reactor head is 17 feet in diameter, made of 6-inch thick carbon steel and lined with ~-inch-thick stainless steel. It weighs 150 tons. Wilkins said the repair plan - still to be approved by the NRC - would have workers cut through the stainless steel liner, remove all of the corroded carbon steel and weld in a 4- or 5-inch-thick patch of stainless steel. "The repair will be X-rayed to make sure it is OK. And it will be peer-inspected," Wilkins said, meaning outside teams will also inspect the job. Davis-Besse is one of 13 nuclear power plants of similar design that the NRC has ordered inspected as soon as possible because of similar cracks. The NRC believes the cracks developed because of high heat, radiation and pressure. NRC spokesman Jan Strasma of the commission's Chicago office, which has been overseeing the project, could not be reached last night. Contact John Funk at: jfunk@plaind.com, 216-999-4138 © 2002 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission. » Send This Page | » © 2001 cleveland.com. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 Close airspace over reactors, Specter says FAA says some airports would lose private aviation Tuesday, March 12, 2002 By Dennis B. Roddy, Post-Gazette Staff Writer Six months after the terrorist attacks on America, U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., toured a nuclear power plant in Beaver County and openly worried that it and plants like it are vulnerable to aerial assaults. "What I intend to do is take the matter up with the FAA," Specter told reporters at a news conference at the Beaver Valley Power Station near Shippingport yesterday morning. Specter said that the Federal Aviation Administration had lifted a ban on private airplane overflights of nuclear power plants and that pilots are now permitted to cross as low as 1,000 feet above such plants. The FAA, acting on a request from national security agencies, closed off airspace over 86 nuclear sites around the country between Oct. 30 and Nov. 6. Noncommercial airplanes were required to keep outside a 10-mile radius around power plants and nuclear laboratories, and at an altitude of 18,000 feet or more. Commercial airliners were not affected by the ban. The ban was later lifted, although the agency has continued to advise private pilots not to circle such facilities. Closing the plant to overflights could prove difficult, said William Shumann, an FAA spokesman. Shumann said the October-November ban closed several airports, notably in Albuquerque, N.M., and Lynchburg, Va., to all private aviation. Beaver County Airport also was affected by the ban, according to county Commissioner Dan Donatella, who holds a private pilot's license. Shumann yesterday said the FAA would close airspace over nuclear facilities if asked to do so by executive branch agencies, including the Office of Homeland Security or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "We would respectfully suggest that Sen. Specter talk to those agencies as well," he said. http://www.post-gazette.com ***************************************************************** 10 Peach Bottom station topic of public meeting LancasterOnline.com Tuesday, March 12 By Rebecca Ritzel Intelligencer Journal Staff The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will host a public meeting tonight to discuss safety at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. The annual meeting, slated this year at Peach Bottom Inn, will start at 7 p.m. NRC officials will present their review of Peach Bottom's operations from April 1, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2001. NRC reactor projects director A. Randolph Blough summarized the commission's findings in a letter sent to officials of Exelon Nuclear, the company that operates Peach Bottom's two reactors. "Overall, both units of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station operated in a manner that preserved public health and safety and fully met all cornerstone objectives," Blough wrote. He said the meeting will be a forum to discuss heightened security after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and safety violations the NRC issued to Exelon for Peach Bottom on Aug. 22 and Oct. 26, 2001. In both cases, Exelon was cited for improperly maintaining sirens and on-site public-address systems that would warn residents and employees of a reactor emergency. After reviewing the incidents, NRC officials said Exelon's responses to the problems were acceptable. Residents will be told the problems are a closed issue, Exelon spokeswoman Fran Reining said Monday. "The meeting is a good thing. It's an attempt to keep the public informed," Reining said. The Peach Bottom Inn is at 6085 Delta Road (State Route 74), about 5 miles from the Norman Wood Bridge. ©2001 Lancaster Newspapers, Inc. ***************************************************************** 11 Depleted uranium soils battlefields Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 05:52:13 -0600 (CST) Depleted uranium soils battlefields Report assesses chemical effects of Gulf war weapon. 12 March 2002 HELEN PEARSON Depleted uranium in weapons may have left some soldiers with kidney damage and could cause long-term environmental contamination, say British scientists. Their independent review calls for accurate exposure tests and long-term environmental monitoring in combat zones. Depleted uranium (DU) is a dense radioactive substance. It was used in weapons to punch through heavily armoured vehicles during the Gulf War and Kosovo conflicts. This created controversy: exploding missiles scatter radioactive and chemically toxic dust that war veterans claim has left them ill. The majority of soldiers have not been exposed to sufficient levels of the heavy metal to be at risk from its toxic effects, the report by the UK's Royal Society concludes1. "For the majority of soldiers on the battlefield we consider it unlikely that there will be any adverse effects," said group leader Brian Spratt, of Imperial College in London. This implies that DU is unlikely to explain Gulf War Syndrome, although the report does not tackle this question explicitly. However, around 200, mainly US, Gulf War soldiers who were hit by friendly fire or spent time cleaning contaminated vehicles may have inhaled enough dust to cause kidney damage, says the report. Unknown numbers of Iraqis may also have been affected. The report's main recommendation is that accurate, validated tests for low levels of DU in urine should be developed, and that those who are identified as exposed should undergo long-term health studies. "You want to use a battery of modern tests," says group member and metabolism researcher Barbara Clayton of the University of Southampton, UK, to identify subtle biochemical changes. Sensitive DU urine tests are expected to be available in the UK by the end of this year. There may also be enduring environmental consequences: 70-80% of all DU weapons - around 250 tonnes in the Gulf War region alone - are thought to remain buried in soil. Children playing at the sites could be at particular risk. And decades on, corroding weapons may release DU into the soil, to be taken up by plants and animals or leached into human water supplies. Long-term monitoring of such sites is required to assess future consequences, the panel say. Removing the weapon debris is virtually impossible because its exact location is unknown. "It's a knowledge gap," says Barry Smith, who studies pollution at the British Geological Survey in Nottingham, UK. Uranium blitz DU weapons were first used by Allied forces in the 1991 Gulf War: an estimated 340 tonnes were used then, and a further 11 tonnes in Bosnia and Kosovo in the late 1990s. Opinions differ on whether DU weapons are currently being used in Afghanistan. An estimated 340 tonnes of DU weapons were fired during the Gulf War In the first part of the Royal Society's report, which was published last year, the committee examined the health effects of radiation exposure from DU - and concluded that there is virtually no increased risk of death from lung cancer. The chemical toxic effects of DU and its environmental impact are dealt with in the second part, published today. The panel of experts had little evidence to work with - few human scientific studies have assessed the long-term toxic effects of DU. Anecdotal accounts report that members of a Gulf clean-up team have become seriously ill. The panel based its conclusions on the available scientific evidence and the estimated DU intakes of soldiers based on battlefield scenarios. References 1. The health hazards of depleted uranium munitions Part II. The Royal Society, (2002). (c) Nature News Service / Macmillan Magazines Ltd 2002 ***************************************************************** 12 UK: Veterans reject depleted uranium shell claims The Scotsman - Tue 12 Mar 2002 Jeanette Oldham HEAVY exposure to depleted uranium from exploded weapons could cause kidney damage in a "small number" of soldiers and civilians, scientists reported yesterday. Experts from the Royal Society said the material could be harmful if inhaled or swallowed in contaminated water, but that few people would be affected. But a spokesman for the National Gulf Veterans and Families’ Association rejected this finding, saying there was anecdotal evidence that large numbers of soldiers had been harmed. Depleted uranium (DU) is the "waste" left over from the process used to produce the fissionable material used in nuclear weapons. Its density makes it an ideal weapon to pierce the armour of enemy tanks and DU was used widely in the Gulf War and conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo and, most recently, Afghanistan. A report by the Royal Society, which examined the poisoning threat, said most soldiers exposed to normal levels of DU on battlefields would not be at risk. But it added that the kidneys of a few soldiers could be damaged if they inhaled large quantities of the dust after their vehicle has been struck by a DU shell, or while working for long periods in contaminated vehicles. Large numbers of corroding DU penetrators buried in the soil may also pose a long term threat if the uranium leaked to water supplies, the report said. Only a small number of civilians would be at risk but heavily contaminated soil should be removed if battlefields were to be re-populated. The report repeated the Society’s earlier recommendation that UK veterans who may have had substantial intakes of DU should be invited to take part in an independent study of its effects. The report also recommended that anecdotal reports of deaths and illness among US Gulf War veterans, who worked in heavily contaminated vehicles, should also be investigated. Soldiers should be tested for kidney function and the presence of DU in their urine if they suffer major exposure in future conflicts. Tony Flint, of the National Gulf Veterans and Families’ Association, condemned the findings, saying: "There’s a guy from my unit who was 350 miles behind the lines in Riyadh and, according to the independent tests we had carried out in Canada, he was suffering from the effects of depleted uranium." The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency has been firing DU shells into the Solway Firth, from a range at Dundrennan, near Kirkudbright in Dumfries and Galloway, for the past decade. Kathleen Glass, the chairwoman of Dundrennan Community Council, who has been concerned the local environment is being polluted, said: "I think I am a bit of a cynic and sometimes fear that people don’t always hear what’s really going on but I am reassured by these findings. "I’m glad that the Royal Society has investigated the risk and not just the MoD or the council here." ©2002 scotsman.com | contact ***************************************************************** 13 Depleted uranium may stop kidneys "in days" New Scientist 00:01 12 March 02 NewScientist.com news service Soldiers who inhale or swallow high levels of depleted uranium (DU) on the battlefield could suffer kidney failure within days, according to a new report from the one of the UK's premier scientific bodies, the Royal Society. There are also long term risks for children who play in heavily contaminated areas, it says. The high density of DU helps shells pierce armour and about 270 tonnes of it have been fired during wars in the Gulf and the Balkans in the last decade. Arguments over the potential risks to human health and the environment have raged ever since. The Royal Society published a report on the radiological hazards in 2001, which concluded that troops in a tank who survived being hit by a DU shell could double their risk of dying from lung cancer. Now the society's team of 11 experts has produced a second report on the chemical and long-term environmental risks. It concludes that most soldiers would not take in enough DU to damage their kidneys. But it points out that those in hit tanks, or who spend time cleaning them up, could suffer heavy metal poisoning. "Kidney uranium levels in some of these soldiers could be very high and would probably lead to kidney failure within a few days of exposure," the report warns. There is also a danger of damage to reproductive health, which has been observed in mice. Contaminated ground DU shells in the ground could contaminate the soil, food and water of communities that return to live on the battlefields, the report says. This may be enough to harm local children, particularly if they swallow soil. But the report is dismissed by anti-DU campaigners who think that the risks are worse that the Royal Society thinks. "This is an attempt to give a scientific imprimatur to the stance of the government, which is unacceptable," argues Malcolm Hooper, a medical chemist from the University of Sunderland who advises the British Gulf War veterans. He says it is wrong to separate the chemical and radiological effects. He has been told that three out of the 3000 veterans so far assessed by the UK government's programme have kidney cancer. This is 12 times the rate amongst civilians and indicates that the radiation emitted by DU is causing more problems than its chemical toxicity. Rob Edwards For exclusive insights into the most important developments in science and technology this week, see New Scientist Print Edition Subscribe to New Scientist Print Edition and get free access to 10 years of the magazine in our online archive Correspondence about this story should be directed to latestnews@newscientist.com. ***************************************************************** 14 Georgia vulnerable to transit of nuclear components - official BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Mar 12, 2002 Text of report in English by Russian news agency ITAR-TASS Tbilisi, 12 March: Chairman of the Georgian State Border Guard Department Valeri Chkheidze told reporters here on Tuesday [12 March] that "there is a danger that Georgian territory could be used for the transit of components of nuclear weapons, mass destruction weapons and the so-called dual technologies". He is participating in a conference on legal questions of control over export of nuclear components, which opened in the Georgian capital on Tuesday. According to the general, Georgian border and customs services have "already recorded attempts" to haul such components across the country. "We have information on firms and groups which were involved in attempts to transit such components and technologies, and we regularly forward appropriate information to the Georgian National Security Council," he continued. Chkheidze said that the international conference in Tbilisi will discuss the question of establishing exchanges of information and supplementing data banks in this sphere. Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in English 1218 gmt 12 Mar 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 15 Radioactive rod found in scrap The Taipei Times Online: 2002-03-12 Tuesday, March 12th, 2002 RADIATION RISK: The cesium rod could have released a deadly cloud of radioactive gas if it had been melted in a furnace along with the scrap heap that it was found in By Chiu Yu-Tzu STAFF REPORTER The Atomic Energy Council (AEC) said yesterday it was confident it would quickly discover the source of a radioactive rod that was found at a steel works last week. "Whether the radioactive waste was disposed of arbitrarily by a local firm that uses radioactive materials or by an illegal importer, we will have an answer soon," AEC Chairman Ouyang Min-shen (¼Ú¶§±Ó²±) said at a press conference yesterday. Last week, the AEC was called to a steel works to investigate the discovery of the radioactive rod in metal scraps on a truck. The 28.28kg cesium-137 (Cs-137) cylinder, 10cm wide and 35.5cm long, was immediately sent to the AEC's Institute of Nuclear Energy Research (INER). Officials said that researchers at the INER will cut the cylinder into pieces to check for serial numbers. AEC officials said that so far they had no idea where the highly radioactive rod came from. The rod emits 270 milliSieverts (mSv) per hour. The recommended radiation exposure in any one year for a member of the public, as recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, is 1mSv. For someone who works with radioactive materials the limit is 20mSv a year. AEC officials yesterday refused to release the name of the steel works where the rod was found but confirmed it as one of 19 that operates melting furnaces. AEC officials said that the Cs-137 rod, with a boiling point of 6710C, would evaporate in a furnace and seriously pollute the environment. The AEC is responsible for regulating all nuclear materials including those for medical use. The most significant source of man-made radiation exposure to the public is from medical procedures, such as diagnostic X-rays and radiation therapy. These procedures use Cs-137 among others. "This unexpected find should have not happened because any licensed firm using radioactive materials would know that the waste cannot be dumped without reporting to the AEC in advance and getting permits," Su Ming-feng (Ĭ©ú®p), director of AEC's Department of Radiation Protection, told the Taipei Times. Su said that, according to the Atomic Energy Act, licensed owners of radioactive sources are obliged to handle radioactive materials safely. The act, however, does not proscribe punishments for failure to abide by it. Anti-nuclear activists of the Green Citizens' Action Alliance yesterday urged the AEC to take responsibility not only for tracing the source of the rod but also to carry out health checks on truck drivers and workers at the steel works to see if they had been exposed to radiation. In the early 1980s, rebar contaminated with cobalt-60 was used in the construction of more than 100 buildings in several counties in Taiwan. In January this year, the High Court judged that the AEC should offer 49 people who had lived in the Minsheng Villas (¥Á¥Í§O¹Ö) in Taipei compensation totalling NT$54 million for its failure to regulate radioactive materials. This story has been viewed 441 times. URL=[http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/03/12/story/0000127324] opyright © 1999-2002 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 16 UK: Depleted uranium soils battlefields Report assesses chemical effects of Gulf war weapon. 12 March 2002 HELEN PEARSON Depleted uranium left from US air strikes on Sarajevo. © AP/Hidajet delic Depleted uranium in weapons may have left some soldiers with kidney damage and could cause long-term environmental contamination, say British scientists. Their independent review calls for accurate exposure tests and long-term environmental monitoring in combat zones. Depleted uranium (DU) is a dense radioactive substance. It was used in weapons to punch through heavily armoured vehicles during the Gulf War and Kosovo conflicts. This created controversy: exploding missiles scatter radioactive and chemically toxic dust that war veterans claim has left them ill. The majority of soldiers have not been exposed to sufficient levels of the heavy metal to be at risk from its toxic effects, the report by the UK's Royal Society concludes1. "For the majority of soldiers on the battlefield we consider it unlikely that there will be any adverse effects," said group leader Brian Spratt, of Imperial College in London. This implies that DU is unlikely to explain Gulf War Syndrome, although the report does not tackle this question explicitly. However, around 200, mainly US, Gulf War soldiers who were hit by friendly fire or spent time cleaning contaminated vehicles may have inhaled enough dust to cause kidney damage, says the report. Unknown numbers of Iraqis may also have been affected. The report's main recommendation is that accurate, validated tests for low levels of DU in urine should be developed, and that those who are identified as exposed should undergo long-term health studies. "You want to use a battery of modern tests," says group member and metabolism researcher Barbara Clayton of the University of Southampton, UK, to identify subtle biochemical changes. Sensitive DU urine tests are expected to be available in the UK by the end of this year. There may also be enduring environmental consequences: 70-80% of all DU weapons - around 250 tonnes in the Gulf War region alone - are thought to remain buried in soil. Children playing at the sites could be at particular risk. And decades on, corroding weapons may release DU into the soil, to be taken up by plants and animals or leached into human water supplies. Long-term monitoring of such sites is required to assess future consequences, the panel say. Removing the weapon debris is virtually impossible because its exact location is unknown. "It's a knowledge gap," says Barry Smith, who studies pollution at the British Geological Survey in Nottingham, UK. Uranium blitz DU weapons were first used by Allied forces in the 1991 Gulf War: an estimated 340 tonnes were used then, and a further 11 tonnes in Bosnia and Kosovo in the late 1990s. Opinions differ on whether DU weapons are currently being used in Afghanistan. An estimated 340 tonnes of DU weapons were fired during the Gulf War In the first part of the Royal Society's report, which was published last year, the committee examined the health effects of radiation exposure from DU - and concluded that there is virtually no increased risk of death from lung cancer. The chemical toxic effects of DU and its environmental impact are dealt with in the second part, published today. The panel of experts had little evidence to work with - few human scientific studies have assessed the long-term toxic effects of DU. Anecdotal accounts report that members of a Gulf clean-up team have become seriously ill. The panel based its conclusions on the available scientific evidence and the estimated DU intakes of soldiers based on battlefield scenarios. References 1. The health hazards of depleted uranium munitions Part II. The Royal Society [http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/] , (2002). © Nature News Service / Macmillan Magazines Ltd 2002 ***************************************************************** 17 Depleted Uranium May Cause Damage Las Vegas SUN Today: March 12, 2002 at 4:50:16 PST LONDON (AP) - A few soldiers - mainly Americans - might suffer kidney damage from depleted uranium munitions used in the Persian Gulf and Balkans conflicts if they swallowed or inhaled enough of the dust, according to a new report. Most at risk are those involved in friendly fire incidents or involved in cleanup activities, said the assessment published Tuesday by The Royal Society, Britain's academy of scientists. The report was prompted by concerns raised last year that the dust created by hits with depleted uranium shells could cause cancer or metal poisoning. Italian researchers began studying the illnesses of veterans of Balkans peacekeeping missions after noting an apparently high number of cancers. Scores of other countries then announced they would also begin screening their troops for depleted uranium exposure and unexplained illnesses. Italy subsequently reported it found the incidence of cancer in soldiers who served in Bosnia and Kosovo was lower than that in the general population. In line with other expert groups that have studied the issue, the Royal Society panel determined that the majority of soldiers on the battlefields of Kosovo, Bosnia and the Persian Gulf would not have been exposed to high enough levels of depleted uranium to suffer harm. "Levels of uranium in the kidneys of soldiers surviving in tanks struck by DU rounds, or of soldiers working for protracted periods in struck tanks, could reach concentrations that lead to some short-term kidney dysfunction," the report said. "But whether this would lead to any long-term adverse effects is unclear." Most of the soldiers affected would be Americans in the Persian Gulf War, who were involved in friendly fire incidents or cleanup operations. In a report last year, The Royal Society concluded that those same few soldiers could be at increased risk of lung cancer from intense exposure to the munitions, but that such cancers would take decades to show up. The report, which entailed a review of the current state of scientific knowledge on the issue, also concluded that children playing at sites where the uranium munitions fell could be harmed if they ate the soil. In the long term, buried uranium shells also could eventually leach into local water supplies, it said. U.S. aircraft used munitions containing depleted uranium, a slightly radioactive heavy metal, during the 78-day air campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999, as well as in Bosnia in 1994 and 1995. The dense uranium shells, which can pierce tanks, were also used during the 1991 Gulf War. NATO denies the ammunition could have triggered cancer in soldiers and many European Union and other experts have concluded over the last year that the risk was negligible. The kidney is the most likely organ to suffer toxic effects from uranium. The few human studies that have been done indicate that kidney failure is likely to occur within a few days at concentrations above 50 micrograms of uranium per gram of kidney. Minor kidney problems are thought to be linked with concentrations of about 1 microgram per gram of kidney. The Royal Society estimated that most soldiers would have levels of 0.005 micrograms per gram of kidney, or less. Soldiers who survived a tank hit with depleted uranium ammunition would likely have kidney uranium levels of 4 micrograms per gram. The report found that damage to the immune system from depleted uranium is unlikely. Exposure levels in combat were too low for that, said Brian Spratt, chairman of the group that prepared the report and a professor at Imperial College of Medicine, Science and Technology. On the Net: Royal Society, http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk [http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk] All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 18 Officials: Levels of beryllium at NLV offices within safety standards Tuesday, March 12, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Dust holds trace of metal By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL Some dust samples and one air sample collected last week from a building at the National Nuclear Security Administration's office complex in North Las Vegas turned up trace amounts of beryllium, but the levels were well within occupational safety standards, federal officials said Monday. The samples collected Thursday and Friday were analyzed over the weekend by a private laboratory in Salt Lake City after a contract worker from Building B-1 in the complex was diagnosed with a debilitating lung disease related to beryllium exposure. "We found some levels of beryllium that were way below regulatory standards," said Darwin Morgan, a spokesman for the administration, which is a branch of the Energy Department. Carl Gertz, environmental management chief for the local administration office and the Nevada Test Site, said the highest beryllium level detected was one-two-hundredth of what's allowed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Gertz said technicians are collecting samples outside of the building so that a baseline can be established to determine how much of the silvery gray-colored metal might be in the surrounding environment from naturally occurring and background sources. Beryllium occurs naturally in about 30 minerals. As was the case Friday, Gertz said, the 250 workers in that building will be given the option to continue working or take paid administrative leave until Wednesday when results from samples collected outside the building are known. The employee who was diagnosed with chronic beryllium disease -- an incurable but treatable disorder that scars lung tissue -- had worked in the building about five years and previously at the test site. Beryllium had been used in small quantities in the building as recently as the early 1990s as an alloy in making switches for diagnostic equipment for collecting data from nuclear weapons tests. Gertz said beryllium at 0.01 micrograms per cubic meter of air was found in one of 39 air samples collected in the building. The OSHA standard is 2 micrograms of beryllium per cubic meter of air. Eighty-five of 309 dust swipes contained beryllium, with the highest reading at 0.085 micrograms per 100 square centimeters of surface area. According to the Energy Department, chronic beryllium disease usually takes more than five years of exposure to fully develop. However, some cases have developed after only three months or as long as 40 years of exposure. webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 19 Uranium weapons health warning BBC News | SCI/TECH | Tuesday, 12 March, 2002, [DU, AP] A lot of effort has gone into assessing the risks By BBC News Online's Ania Lichtarowicz A small number of soldiers and civilians might suffer kidney damage from depleted uranium (DU) if substantial amounts are breathed in, or swallowed in contaminated soil and water. The main concerns are that children can ingest large amounts of soil when they're playing Prof Brian Spratt A report by the UK's academy of science, the Royal Society, recommends that soldiers who may have been exposed to DU should be tested for the presence of uranium in their kidneys and in their urine. Written by some of the country's leading scientists, the report also suggests that DU may contaminate water supplies - putting civilians at risk. The society's recommendations include annual water sampling in areas of high contamination and more research into the health of veterans who may have been exposed to DU. Inhaled dust DU is used in weapons designed to pierce the heaviest armour, such as in tanks. It is a by-product of nuclear fuel development and is slightly radioactive. Gulf war veteran Brian Tooze was rushed into hospital with suspected meningitis four years after he returned from the conflict. But instead of the brain disease, doctors found there was evidence of DU in his urine. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that now he suffers from skin cancer, kidney trouble, irritable bowel syndrome, constant headaches, tinnitus and problems with balance. Testing "It is impossible to work and I may now have to have my right knee replaced with a false one," he added. Mr Tooze does not put all his symptoms down to DU exposure - he blames a combination of that and post-traumatic stress disorder, but he has backed calls for proper testing of UK soldiers. A previous report by the Royal Society, published in May last year, suggested the radioactivity associated with DU might increase the risk of individuals developing lung cancer. Those most at risk are soldiers who breathe in high levels of DU dust which often occurs when a person is caught close to a DU impact. On penetrating a tank, the weapon breaks up to form a fine dust that can be inhaled. The dust can also settle on the ground and cause further danger to the clean-up teams who move into an area to remove the wreckage of war. Heavy metal Depleted uranium is also a dangerous chemical that can have other effects on the body. [DU, AP] The Balkans: Wherever Nato has gone to war, the issue has been hotly debated This latest report by the Royal Society suggests that most soldiers on the battlefield will be exposed to levels of DU that are unlikely to cause heavy metal poisoning. But those who inhale large enough quantities may experience short-term kidney problems. Currently there is not enough data to assess the long-term damage. The scientists predict that very high exposure could lead to kidney failure within days. The UN is recording DU hot spots - areas where DU weapons have been used. Children at risk Professor Brian Spratt from Imperial College in London and one of the authors of the Royal Society report said that children could be particularly at risk "The main concerns are that children can ingest large amounts of soil when they're playing and ingestion of the heavily contaminated soil could give them high levels of uranium in their kidneys which could cause them some kidney damage," he told BBC News Online. Another problem is water contamination. Local civilian populations could be at risk if DU leaked into water sources. Tests show this has not happened. But Professor Spratt suggests that water sampling is carried out every year as it could take up to 40 years for the DU to filter into the water. Recent conflict If that did happen and dangerous levels of DU were present then drinking water would be unsafe. DU weapons were used in the Gulf War and in the Balkans. The British Ministry of Defence has confirmed that no DU weapons have been used by UK forces in the conflict in Afghanistan. It is not yet clear whether the US has used DU weapons. Professor Spratt is hopeful that screening of veterans will start by the end of the year so more can be learnt about the effects of DU on the body. ***************************************************************** 20 Harmful beryllium detected in North Las Vegas office Las Vegas SUN Today: March 12, 2002 at 9:44:31 PST By Mary Manning The presence of toxic metal particles was confirmed Monday in air and dust at a North Las Vegas office of the National Nuclear Security Administration, though at levels below what is considered safe for workplaces. The government initiated testing after a worker was diagnosed with chronic beryllium disease last week. The agency oversees research at the Nevada Test Site and nuclear weapons security. The largest amount of beryllium found among the air samples was a trace -- 0.01 micrograms per cubic meter of air -- well under the federal workplace limit of 2 micrograms per cubic meter. In addition, 85 of 309 samples of dust taken from ceiling and attic beams contained traces of the metal. A sample from the building's roof also contained a trace of the metal, NNSA environmental manager Carl Gertz said. "The good news is it doesn't approach regulatory limits," Gertz said. "The bad news is we don't know what activities caused the beryllium to be there." The office building, in a complex on Losee Road north of Lake Mead Boulevard in North Las Vegas, once housed shops where weapons components and instruments used to measure underground nuclear weapons explosions were assembled. Metals machined there more than seven years ago included copper containing 2 percent beryllium, a rare metallic chemical element found in combination with other alloys. Beryllium can also be found in Southern Nevada's rock. The name of the employee, who has worked at the building less than four years, has been not released. He visited a doctor after experiencing symptoms of lung problems, including coughing and shortness of breath, said Dr. James Collet, NNSA medical director and a contractor for Bechtel Nevada, which manages the Nevada Test Site. Exposure to the tainted dust can cause chronic breathing problems in sensitive individuals. After the NNSA learned of the worker's diagnosis, monitors were sent to the site, where they vacuumed the air inside the building Thursday and Friday. The NNSA will continue to sample air and soil outside the building complex through today, Gertz said. About 40 of the about 400 who work at the North Las Vegas office complex have taken paid leave while environmental tests continue. The NNSA is offering workers voluntary blood and lung tests for beryllium. Hundreds of Test Site workers have been screened for medical problems related to exposure from radiation and dust in the past two years, but no case of chronic beryllium disease was confirmed until last week. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 21 Hazmat Drill Gains New Urgency in N.Va. (washingtonpost.com) Realizing 'Anything Could Happen,' Experts Prepare for the Worst By William Branigin Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, March 11, 2002; Page B04 Dressed in yellow protective suits and carrying tanks of compressed air on their backs, Emily Murphy and John Guy slowly passed hand-held radiation detectors over the "victim" of a nuclear terrorist attack. As hazmat drills go, there was nothing unique about this one -- except for the participants' attitudes. With contingencies once dismissed as far-fetched now looming as much more realistic possibilities, hazardous-materials trainers are responding with a new sense of purpose. "We're taking it a bit more seriously," said Robert Joy, a Fairfax County firefighter and hazmat technician, who joined Murphy, Guy and dozens of other firefighters in a decontamination drill last week at the Fairfax fire department training academy. "Now it's obvious that anything could happen -- anytime, anywhere." Participants from the Fairfax, Arlington and Fort Belvoir fire departments as well as the FBI attended lectures on one of the event's three days and practiced tending to victims of chemical, biological and radiological agents, including "dirty bombs," in which radioactive materials are wrapped around explosives. Under billowing smoke from a nearby building where other firefighters and recruits battled a simulated town-house fire, the hazmat technicians practiced setting up a newly acquired decontamination tent with portable showers. They also reviewed the new dangers of a world that changed dramatically Sept. 11. Before the terrorist attacks, for example, radiation detection focused on incidents involving hospitals or the hauling of nuclear materials, said Joseph Kratochvil, a master technician in the Fairfax fire department. "Post-September 11, where are we looking for it? Everywhere. Dirty bombs could be planted with whatever else is there." Such warnings underscore the challenges facing local jurisdictions, which are being squeezed by budget constraints at a time when they face unprecedented demands for emergency preparedness. In proposing his fiscal 2003 budget last week, Fairfax County Executive Anthony H. Griffin said he was unable to include $1.8 million requested by the fire department to staff the county's hazardous-materials response team full time. Also unfunded: permanent staffing for the police department's criminal intelligence unit, a health information officer and a replacement for the county's outdated Emergency Operations Center. Supervisors vowed to seek funding for the hazmat team, which has been staffed round-the-clock since October's anthrax attacks, and the intelligence unit, which has been helping federal authorities track suspected terrorists. In an October letter to Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), Board of Supervisors Chairman Katherine K. Hanley (D) sought federal assistance in meeting up to $26.6 million in local emergency preparedness expenses. A federal funding package for the Washington area subsequently earmarked $12 million for Fairfax, but the county has yet to see any of it, officials said. As for state funds, so far "we're taking cuts rather than getting increases" for public safety, said Susan Datta, director of the county's Department of Management and Budget. Fairfax police stand to lose at least $3.5 million in state funds this fiscal year and next, she said. In response to a "vulnerability assessment" by state and local officials last year, the county has beefed up security around potential terrorist targets. The assessment listed 372 sites, about 50 of which are considered high-risk, including CIA headquarters in Langley, the National Reconnaissance Office in Chantilly, and Fort Belvoir. Also on the list are schools, fuel storage tanks and sewage treatment facilities and the homes of Washington's movers and shakers such as Cabinet secretaries, lawmakers and Supreme Court justices. "We have a lot of potential targets that need to be protected," said Supervisor Gerald E. Connolly (D-Providence). So does neighboring Arlington, which received $16 million in federal funds. In addition to the Pentagon, the county is home to the Navy Annex, the Defense Communications Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The District and suburban Maryland counties also have received federal aid; Montgomery County got about $9.5 million to help pay for a proposed traffic management center, a stockpile of medication and vaccinations for frontline emergency workers, and a "mini war room." Since the fall, local officials have increased cooperation with federal agencies and paid closer heed to terrorist attacks around the world. "We try to capture not only the incidents that have occurred, but the incidents that have been prevented," said Battalion Chief Daryl L. Louder, Fairfax's hazmat chief. He cited the discovery in 1995 of a crude dirty bomb in Moscow; the 30-pound device contained radioactive cesium and was one of four that Chechen separatists claimed to have smuggled into Russia. "This type of terrorism is both possible and effective," the Virginia Department of Emergency Management warned in a 1997 training manual. "Radiological material is everywhere," Louder said. A small dirty bomb might not kill many people, he said, but it could still spread terror and make wide areas unusable. "For years we were told by the FBI that it wasn't 'if' but 'when,' and everyone would nod their heads in agreement," said Edward P. Plaugher, Arlington's fire chief. "But it didn't register." Now, he said, "we should take every bit of that seriously. . . . We need a national strategy, and that strategy has to be carried out at the local level. It can't be ignored." As master technician Sean O'Connor watched colleagues practice setting up the new decontamination tent in last week's drills, he pondered possible terrorist scenarios. "I always thought it would be a nerve agent," but even blowing up gasoline storage tanks "could cripple the whole area," O'Connor said. "One day, one of them is going to get through, and you have to be prepared to deal with it," he said. "That's what this is all about." © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 22 Uranium tests for Kosovo and Gulf troops news.telegraph.co.uk - By Roger Highfield, Science Editor (Filed: 12/03/2002) VETERANS of the Gulf and Kosovo conflicts are to have urine tests to measure exposure to toxic and radioactive depleted uranium (DU) used in armour-piercing shells. The tests, part of a study of cancer, kidney damage and other potential health problems caused by DU, will produce results at the end of this year - two years after the plans were announced by the Government. Professor Brian Spratt, chairman of a Royal Society working group that publishes an independent study of DU today, also called for soldiers in future wars to be tested for the heavy metal. Their kidney function should also be assessed and they should be warned of the long-term risks to children who live where munitions were once used. DU munitions were first fired in the Gulf war of 1991, releasing 339 tons of the toxic metal into the environment. Although one survey said that around 17 per cent of UK soldiers believed they had Gulf war syndrome, it has been difficult to disentangle the health effects of DU from those of vaccinations, chemical warfare antidotes, insecticides, rodenticides, solvents, lubricants and smoke from burning oil wells. In January 2001, the Ministry of Defence said it would offer urine tests to veterans of the Gulf and Balkan conflicts. Its DU oversight board has monitored efforts to come up with a validated test using mass spectrometry. "We have get it right," said the MoD. Scientists believe that it should still be possible to tell whether a soldier who fought in the Gulf inhaled as little as 25 milligrams of DU. This level is linked with a small increased risk of lung cancer but no toxic effects on organs. "Just testing positive for DU is not necessarily of any consequence," said Prof Spratt. The highest intakes are thought to have been by around 100 US servicemen who cleaned up contaminated vehicles, said Prof Spratt. Alarming but anecdotal reports of deaths and illnesses among them should be independently investigated, says the study. © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited [http://pressoffice.telegraph.co.uk] ***************************************************************** 23 Two men detained with radioactive, narcotic substances in southern Kazakhstan BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Mar 11, 2002 Text of report by Kazakh Khabar TV on 11 March Staff from the South Kazakhstan Regional national security department have detained two suspicious men in Makhtaaral District on the Kazakh-Uzbek border. During an inspection, they found on them a total of 1.5 kg of radioactive and narcotic substances which were being transported from Tajikistan via Uzbekistan. The men, who turned out to be Uzbek nationals, wanted to sell these substances for 2m tenge [some 13,000 dollars]. A physical and chemical analysis showed that the gamma radiation of this catch measured 340 times more than the background radiation. Staff from the national security department are currently investigating where these substances came from, to whom they belonged and where they were being sent to. Source: Khabar Television, Almaty, in Kazakh 1100 gmt 11 Mar 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 24 AU: Nuclear dump outcry set to be ignored [12mar02] news.com.au - By Environment Reporter CATHERINE HOCKLEY The Advertiser 12mar02 THE Federal Government will have to use legislation to forcibly acquire land in the state's outback for a national nuclear waste dump. The site earmarked for the planned low-level radioactive waste repository is in the Woomera Prohibited Area, but is located on a pastoral lease and owned by the state. The Federal Government has two options to acquire the preferred site, known as Area 52A, or Evetts Field West, which is on the pastoral station, Wirraminna, northwest of Woomera. It can negotiate with the State Government to excise the land from the pastoral lease – unlikely, given state opposition to the dump – or use the Commonwealth Lands Acquisition Act 1989 to obtain the site. "The Commonwealth would acquire the land prior to the start of operations of the repository should it be chosen as the final site," federal Science Minister Peter McGauran's spokesman said yesterday. State Environment Minister John Hill said the Government would oppose both options. "The State Government intends to resist this dump any way we can," he said. Mr Hill said the Government would consider its legal position if the Federal Government used legislation to acquire the land: "There well may be some legal options we can take. "I think the simple message to Canberra is `don't send your dumps to SA'." The State Government would legislate immediately on the return of Parliament against the low-level dump. He said it was a myth that the preferred site, one of three which are all in SA nominated by the Federal Government, was barren. "It's on a pastoral lease – it's land that is growing wealth for this state and the Federal Government wants to put a dump on it," Mr Hill said. Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear spokesman David Noonan yesterday condemned any attempt by the Federal Government to site the dump in SA against the protests of South Australians. "They are likely to use this legislation to override the wishes of South Australians." He described the Federal Government's public consultation over the dump as a "farce". A draft environmental impact statement on the repository is expected to be released this month. [http://www.ni.com.au] ***************************************************************** 25 EDITORIAL: Yucca Mountain: The Nation's Hot Spot By Jennifer Van Bergen t r u t h o u t | 03.10.02 The Bush Administration has decided to go ahead with the plan to store an estimated 77,000 tons of nuclear waste under an obscure little mountain in Nevada called Yucca Mountain. The Department of Energy (DOE) claims that storage would be safe. There has been major outcry from Nevada citizens and representatives. Democratic Senator Reid was so bold as to call President Bush a liar. Even the Republicans in Nevada are mad. It is perplexing. Why is it necessary to store all this country's nuclear waste in one spot? And, why choose a spot that is known to be geologically unstable? The answer to the first question is that Congress passed a law back in 1982, called the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), which makes construction of a permanent, geologic nuclear waste repository a national priority. Why Yucca Mountain, then? Out of nine sites originally considered, only three states were actually tested: Texas, Washington, and Nevada. Congress dropped Texas and Washington from the list in 1987, because it was too expensive to study all three sites. That left only Nevada. What level of rational thinking could have gone into determining whether the only site under consideration was adequate? It's like a father telling his son to consider thoroughly his choice of a bride: either Miss M. Yucca or Miss M. Yucca. Furthermore, no one seems to have bothered to question Congress' mandate to construct a national repository. Thus, what level of rational thought could now go into choosing a site? The answer is obvious: none. No matter how many feasibility studies, environmental impact statements, or public discussions we conduct, the decisions cannot be rational under these conditions. The conditions, of course, are dictated by the fact that nuclear power produces hazardous nuclear waste that simply cannot be safely disposed of. As Grace Thorpe, President of the National Environmental Coalition of Native Americans, has said: "What kind of society permits the manufacture of products that cannot be safely disposed of? Shouldn't we have a basic law of the land that prohibits the production of anything we cannot safely dispose?" This question does not affect only Nevadans. In testimony given by David Comarow, a patent attorney, faculty member in the Science Department of the Community College of Southern Nevada, and member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, he makes it disturbingly clear that a simple rise in subterranean groundwater under Yucca Mountain (which has already been known to occur as a result of seismic activity in the region), or a terrorist attack (using, perhaps, bunker-busting bombs?), or even just human miscalculation (placing canisters too close to each other can result in a spontaneous chain nuclear reaction) -- that any one of these events could create a major nuclear disaster that would contaminate the entire biosphere. Wait. Did you catch that? A major nuclear disaster that would contaminate the entire biosphere. That means a worldwide nuclear holocaust. That is not acceptable risk. It is folly. So, again, why Yucca Mountain? The Department of Energy claims that Yucca Mountain is on federal property. Grace Thorpe states that it is on Indian land. She says it belongs to the Western Shoshone Indians. Why does this matter? It matters because U.S. government officials have been trying to use tribal sovereignty to bypass state environmental laws. If officials can convince a tribe to assert its tribal sovereignty to accept a site, the state cannot prevent it. It is well known that Nevadans are opposed to using Yucca Mountain as a national nuclear waste repository. It is well known that Nevada politicians are opposed to it. Indians are now being told that they are the natural stewards of the land and so should accept the responsibility of nuclear waste. It is a disgusting, appalling argument. Some tribes have unfortunately bought this argument, or tried to maneuver some benefits for their tribes by negotiating over the nuclear dump issue. However, it is against Native American spiritual teachings to take resources from the earth. Native Americans should not be forced to carry the burden of lethal waste that has been produced against their own teachings. But, more important even than the question of the burden of disposal is the question of the survival of the human race. What can our government be thinking? The Bush Administration, supported by the twenty-year-old Nuclear Waste Policy Act, is telling us to create a Mt. Vesuvius of Greek-tragic proportions. For those who know Greek mythology: remember the god Hades? In Roman mythology, he was called Pluto - the name borrowed by scientists when they aptly named the radioactive element plutonium. Pluto was the god of the Underworld and the dead. He also ruled over volcanoes. What we are doing by depositing all our nation's nuclear waste under Yucca Mountain is making a gateway to Hell, a plugged volcano. According to a statement issued on February 15, 2002 by Bush's Press Secretary: "One central site provides more protection for this material than do the existing 131 sites." Bush, furthermore, claims that proceeding with the repository program "is necessary to protect public safety, health, and the Nation's security." Bush goes on to point out that the cost of nuclear power "compares favorably with the costs of electricity generation by other sources, and nuclear power has none of the emissions associated with coal and gas power plants." Is this what Bush calls sound science? This is such bad reasoning that my cat would know better. Sure, a single, geologically and elementally unstable target makes Americans safer. Sure, because nuclear power doesn't pollute the air like nonrenewable resources do, it's safer. (Hello??) Sure, because back in 1982 Congress decided it had some responsibility to find a place to permanently dispose of nuclear waste, we are now bound to ignore the consequences? The fact is, a Yucca Mountain repository would NOT be safe. The half-life of plutonium 239 is 24,000 years. The half-life of uranium 235 is 704 million years. Does anyone argue that the containers that hold these incredibly lethal substances will last that long? Well, no. The Department of Energy (DOE) states that only "about 1 percent of the waste packages are projected to lose their integrity during the first 80,000 years." Okay. Does that mean that we aren't supposed to worry for the first 80,000 years, and after that, who cares? In any case, the packages DO corrode. The DOE also states that "the repository model predicts the eventual loss of waste package integrity" from water penetration. Hmmm. The answer to this problem, according to the DOE, is that the groundwater under Yucca Mountain will "diffuse" the radioactive leakage toward the Amargosa Desert. Of course, Yucca Mountain groundwater systems (again, according to the DOE) are "internally contained," and do not connect with any other aquifers. I guess Yucca Mountain might someday be a real hot spot. Finally, the DOE declares that "scientists and engineers expect future earthquakes to occur in the Yucca Mountain area," but adds that "these earthquakes will not adversely affect safety." Say what?? Do we really think we can anticipate or mitigate the forces of nature to that degree? Man has certainly become arrogant. We need to recognize that nuclear power is not a safe form of energy for the human race. Remember that Einstein himself was against nuclear power. We need to stop producing it. We need to do as Grace Thorpe recommended: enact a law that prohibits production of anything we cannot safely dispose. And, we must NOT put all these eggs in one basket. Every investor in the country who has ever diversified his or her portfolio knows this rule. All-the-eggs-in-one-basket means that all the eggs can be lost in a single heartbeat. It means we are NOT safe. If all our nuclear waste is in one basket and that basket becomes compromised, it could mean the end of the human race. We must look for other solutions. A Yucca Mountain repository is not one of them. Jennifer Van Bergen [JVB@truthout.com] is an Editor and a regular contributor to t r u t h o u t. © : t r u t h o u t 2002 ***************************************************************** 26 Letter: Yucca repository will not benefit local residents Las Vegas SUN Today: March 12, 2002 at 8:53:02 PST With Enron-related scandals spinning out of control, our unelected president quickly approved the politically motivated recommendation for the Yucca Mountain project last month. Compensation for Nevada is lining the pockets of former Gov. Bob List's pockets. He is paid to promote the nuclear power industry's interests, not ours. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham received thousands of dollars in contributions from the nuclear power industry when he ran for senator from Michigan in 2000. Abraham accepted at least $9,500 from Enron; the Nuclear Energy Institute contributed $4,000, DTE Energy, $5,000, Exelon gave $2,000, Constellation $2,000, and FirstEnergy ponied up $2,000 for his failed bid. The state of New Mexico accepted the Waste Isolation Pilot Project nuke waste dump based upon financial promises from the Department of Energy. What happened? Local residents weren't hired. Out of 800 jobs that were created, 75-80 percent went to out-of-state workers brought in by the contractor. Unemployment has gone up since WIPP opened in 1999. Local businesses have moved away and new spin-off industries were not created. New Mexico has a court mandate to receive $57 million for highways and $20 million per year for 14 years, which have not been paid. Property values have declined significantly. Neither homeowner's insurance nor health insurance covers radiological accidents. Check your policy! It will explicitly state that you will not be covered if your damage or illness is caused by a nuclear accident. CELIA S. HECHT All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 27 SCHEER, ROBERT: "THE FALLOUT OF DESPERATION" Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 00:06:22 -0600 (CST) LATimes, Tuesday, March 12, 2002. By ROBERT SCHEER THE FALLOUT OF DESPERATION When in doubt, nuke 'em. The news that the Pentagon had secret contingency plans to fight terrorism with nuclear weapons has the marks not of considered military doctrine but rather of an infantile tantrum born of the Bush administraton's frustration in making good on its overblown promise to end the terrorist scourge. There is desperation in the air; the giant that is America feels humbled by the terrorists who have not been brought fully to account. There still is not a clear line of command connecting the hijackers with Al Queda and Taliban leaders whom the president has yet to capture, "dead or alive". Neither has there been progress on the source of the anthrax that killed five people and crippled the U.S. Postal Service, except the disconcerting evidence that this particular evil seems to be homegrown. Nuclear weapons also are a made-in-the-U.S.A. product, and given that we are the only nation to have used them, one would expect that we would have a special responsibility to eschew their future use. Instead, the administration's plan not only targets the three "axis of evil" nations - Iran, Iraq and North Korea - but Syria, Libya, Russia and China as well. Consider the abusurdity: We risk escalating a worldwide nuclear arms race to nuke a shadow terrorist enemy whose most effective military action to date was begun with box cutters. Clearly, that threat could have been met best by taking the modest steps of maintaining armed air marshals on civilian planes and employing better-trained airport security guards. Nuking our own or anyone else's airports would not have saved the World Trade Center and the human beings who were there Sept. 11. The hijackers succeeded because our $30-billion-a-year intelligence apparatus failed to perform and we consistently coddled Sauidi Arabia's backers of religious hate even after their minions blew up our embassies. Having squandered the Clinton-led Israel-Palestine peace initiatives, President Bush watched from the sidelines as the Mideast caldron, the source of most of the world's terrorist threats, boiled to overflowing. The enduring terrorist threat has little to do with the caves of Afghanistan and everything to do with the failure to secure the Mideast peace promised by Bush's father's Gulf War. Clearly, Arab-Israeli peace should be the highest order in a war on terrorism. This administration, however - whether to gain poll approval or because of its allegiance to military contractors - has raised the military options above any diplomatic efforts. So why not also throw some nuclear weapons into the mix? Because it is ludicrous. Does anyone really believe that nuclear weapons might save the lives of Israelis and Palestinians, when it assuredly would incinerate them? Or that targeting Russia and China for potential nuclear attacks would lead those nations to embrace further moves toward nuclear stability and arms control? Or cause them to be less threatened by our announced plan to scrap the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and build a missile defense? In fact, Chinese or Russian military planners would be attacked by their own hard-liners if they failed to respond to this report by placing even greater emphasis on making their own nuclear forces more robust, survivable and again on hair-trigger alert in anticipation of an American first strike. To encourage heightened fears of U.S. nuclear intentions at a time when the Russians and Chinese are our allies in the war against terrorism is dizzyingly counterpoductive. We need to encourage those countries and other nuclear powers to think of nuclear weapons as dangerous junk that at best will boomerang and destroy all that they care about. As the anthrax example demonstrates, our own investment in weapons of mass destruction can easily turn into our own undoing. What madness to even entertain the thought that nuclear weapons are anything other than the means to the world's destruction. What we need instead is a U.S.-led world-wide campaign to shun nuclear weapons as inherently genocidal, to effectively end proliferation of nuclear weapons technology and material and to treat those nations that dally in the business of nuclear arms as barbarians in need of restraint. It is we who have defined rogue nations as those bent on developing weapons of mass destruction. How then can we so cavalierly entertain the idea of again leading the world down the path to nuclear Armageddon? - ====================== *** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Feel free to distribute widely but PLEASE acknowledge the ***************************************************************** 28 Journalists support Pasko Gregory Pasko, an investigative journalist who worked for the Pacific Fleet's newspaper, was arrested on 20 November 1997 by the FSB and charged with high treason for his writing about the nuclear safety issues in the Russian Pacific Fleet. A delegation from the Committee to Protect Journalists has completed a four-day mission to Russia, with an urgent call for the release of Grigory Pasko, who himself is awaiting the scheduling of his appeal case. Jon Gauslaa, 2002-03-12 06:26 -- We are here to support our Russian colleagues in attempting to free Grigory Pasko, and to halt what seems to be an increasingly heavy-handed attempt to crush the development of a free press in Russia, said Terry Anderson, honorary co-chairman of the New York based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), at a press conference in Moscow last Friday. Pasko hangs on Together with CPJ Europe program co-ordinator Alex Lupis, and CPJ Europe researcher Olga Tarasov, Anderson met both Pasko supporters and government officials in Vladivostok early last week. The delegation was not allowed to meet Pasko himself. According to informed sources the reporter is however, hanging on. His prison-conditions have improved significantly since the chairman of the Upper House of the Russian State Duma, Sergei Mironov, engaged himself in Pasko's case in early January. In Moscow the CPJ delegation met Aleksandr Tkachenko, head of the PEN Center in Moscow; Naum Nim, editor-in-chief of the Index on Censorship; and Anatoly Pyshkin, one of Pasko's attorneys. The delegation also met Grigory Yavlinsky and Boris Nemtsov, respectively the heads of the liberal Yabloko faction and the Union of Right Forces faction in the State Duma; and Dmitry Muratov, editor of one of Russia's remaining independent newspapers Novaya Gazeta, which has published several of Pasko's articles. The discussions focused on deteriorating press freedom conditions in Russia and Pasko's pending appeal with the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court. Date for appeal case not set No date has been set for the hearing of the appeal, but at a seminar in St. Petersburg on March 3, Anatoly Pyshkin said that he expected the appeal to be heard in late April or early May. Mr. Pyshkin added that he did not dare to predict the outcome of the hearing, although he was confident that his client has a strong case from the legal point of view. -- This is however, Russia, he said with an enigmatic smile. In February, the Military Collegium of the Russian Supreme Court cancelled article 70 of decree 010:90 and the whole decree 055:96 of the Russian Ministry of Defence. Both normative acts were used as parts of the legal basis for Pasko's conviction. The decisions has however, had no short-time significance for the case, since they have both been appealed by the Ministry of Defence. Also the defence has appealed the decision on decree 055:96, due to its unclearness regarding from which date the decree is cancelled. Meanwhile, what seems to be a campaign against Pasko on the Kremlin controlled ORT TV-station continues. Recently a second episode about Pasko was sent under the vignette 'the citizen and the law', with the expressed ambition to present the 'truth' about the case. This ambition was however not fulfilled, and the program-makers' tight connections with the FSB were visible both from their seemingly unlimited access to the FSB's 'secret' film-archives and the number of anonymous FSB-officers taking part in the program. * Grigory Pasko was arrested on November 20, 1997. He was acquitted by the Pacific Fleet Court in Vladivostok of treason through espionage on July 20, 1999, but sentenced to a three-year imprisonment for misusing his position and released on a general amnesty. Both sides appealed the verdict. In November 2000 the Military Supreme Court cancelled the verdict, and sent the case back for a new trial at the Pacific Fleet Court. The re-trial started on July 11, 2001 and ended on December 25, with Pasko being convicted to four years of hard labour for treason and taken into custody. The verdict is appealed again by both sides. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge 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 ***************************************************************** 29 Russian foreign minister calls for further clarification of US nuclear strategy BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Mar 11, 2002 Text of report by Russian news agency Interfax Moscow, 11 March. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov has said that if the media reports of the list of countries against which the USA could employ nuclear weapons "prove to be true, then this could only be a source of regret and concern". "What is more, such concern would not be restricted to Russia, but would be felt by the entire international community," Ivanov told journalists on Monday [11 March]. "We hope that following the clarification already given by the US secretary of state and the presidential national security adviser, statements from a higher source will be forthcoming, which will clarify the situation and reassure the international community," the minister commented. Source: Interfax news agency, Moscow, in Russian 1256 gmt 11 Mar 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 30 Russian defence minister denies nuclear arms cooperation with Iran, Iran radio BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Mar 12, 2002 Text of report by Iranian radio from Mashhad on 12 March Russian Defence Minister Sergey Ivanov has strongly denied any cooperation between Russia and Iran in producing and building nuclear missiles. As he headed for the USA yesterday, Ivanov said at an Irish airport [Shannon] that Russia had no cooperation with Iran in producing nuclear missiles or weapons. Saying that Russia and Iran were cooperating only in constructing the Busher nuclear facility [in Iran], Ivanov noted that the International Atomic Energy Agency was exercising full supervision of the project. Speaking about Russia's sale of weapons to Iran, Ivanov said talks on this were currently under way, and that over the past two years the two countries had signed only one agreement on selling Russian helicopters [to Iran]. The idea that such agreements will pose a threat to peace in the region or in the world is ridiculous, Ivanov said. Source: Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mashhad, in Dari 0330 gmt 12 Mar 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 31 Russian Official Had Dual Role in Uranium Pact March 12, 2002 Security: The former nuclear chief's links raise questions about the U.S.' decision to privatize the buying of weapon-grade chemical element. By DAVID WILLMAN and ALAN C. MILLER, Times Staff Writers WASHINGTON -- Two years ago, a small Pennsylvania consulting firm was quietly hired by another American company responsible for carrying out a sensitive nuclear security agreement between the United States and Russia. As it turns out, one of the Pennsylvania firm's owners was Yevgeny O. Adamov, who then also headed the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy. At the time, Adamov's ministry was overseeing multimillion-dollar negotiations between Russia and USEC Inc., the same company that hired the Pennsylvania firm. These circumstances have raised new questions about the U.S. government's decision to hand a momentous national security function to private industry. USEC buys bomb-grade uranium stripped from Russian warheads as the exclusive agent for the U.S. government under a novel, post-Cold War agreement known as Megatons to Megawatts. The uranium is shipped to the United States, where it is resold as fuel for nuclear power plants. The urgency of removing weapon-grade uranium from circulation in Russia has been underscored since the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. President Bush and other leaders have warned that terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, are intent on obtaining nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Adamov's Involvement Unknown, Officials Say USEC executives say they did not know who owned the consulting firm, and did not learn of Adamov's involvement until he resigned his government post last year amid allegations of corruption. They said the firm was hired for legitimate consulting work to identify prospective joint ventures between USEC and the commercial arm of the Russian atomic energy ministry. No projects were launched before the contract expired. Peter R. Orszag, a Brookings Institution economist and critic of privatizing the nuclear security agreement, said the consulting deal involving the Pennsylvania firm reflects badly on USEC's management. "I find it inconceivable that the United States government would sign a consulting contract with a firm owned by the [Russian] minister of atomic energy," Orszag said. "Most private sector entities would not undertake such a transaction." Federal law discourages companies from making private business arrangements with public officials in foreign governments. The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act makes it a crime for a U.S. business to make payments to a government official that could be construed as an inducement. A USEC spokesman said the company did not violate the law, and he noted that the contract called for the consulting firm, Omeka Ltd., to comply with all applicable Russian and U.S. laws, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Interviews and records reviewed by The Times show that USEC paid Omeka $123,880 for consulting fees and expenses incurred from Jan. 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001. At the same time--under terms specified in its contract with USEC--Omeka also received payments totaling $90,000 or more from the commercial arm of Adamov's government ministry. The contract ended around the time Adamov resigned from the Russian government in March 2001. Earlier that year, an investigative report circulated by a panel of Russia's lower house of parliament, or Duma, alleged that Adamov had mixed his private business dealings and public responsibilities. At the time, Adamov denied any wrongdoing. Company Official Tells of Blind Trust The report noted Adamov's ownership in Omeka; The Times could not confirm other allegations contained in the document. The report did not refer to Omeka's contract with USEC. Adamov declined to respond to requests for an interview for this article or to answer written questions submitted to him in Russia. An Omeka executive said he did not believe Adamov received revenue from Omeka while he was a government minister. "We more or less put it [Adamov's ownership] in a blind trust," said Mark M. Kaushansky, who co-founded Omeka in 1994 with Adamov. Now based in Bethesda, Md., USEC once was a government-owned corporation, like Amtrak, and it processed the nation's uranium for use in nuclear power plants. As such, USEC had responsibility for carrying out the Megatons to Megawatts pact with Russia. The 1993 agreement calls for 500 metric tons of weapon-grade uranium to be stripped from the Russian warheads, blended to a lower level of radioactivity and sold to the U.S. When the federal government sold USEC to investors for $1.9 billion in 1998, the privatized entity retained responsibility for the national security agreement between the U.S. and Russia. The agreement calls for the publicly traded company to purchase a certain amount of uranium each year from the Russians. But it is up to USEC to negotiate the price for the uranium, which it resells to utilities in the U.S. Analysts estimate that the Russians, over a 20-year period ending in 2013, would be paid approximately $12 billion for the uranium under the Megatons to Megawatts accord. The exact price, however, has been subject to recurrent negotiations between the Russians and USEC. Indeed, the financial terms have been contested intensely; even a slight shift in price can be worth huge sums to the Russian government or USEC. Both sides now are trying to reach an agreement for new pricing terms, through 2013. The negotiations got underway in early 2000--about the same time that USEC retained Omeka. The discussions that led to the consulting contract between USEC and Omeka began in late 1999. In a series of interviews for this article, USEC executives and a representative of Adamov's company said the dealings had no connection with the negotiations regarding the national security agreement between the U.S. and Russian governments. A USEC senior vice president, Philip G. Sewell, said Omeka was retained to provide "a speculative assessment" of opportunities with the commercial arm of the Russian atomic energy ministry, known as Tenex. The contract specified that services were to be performed by "no one other than" Kaushansky, a Pittsburgh-based representative of Omeka who is Adamov's business partner and whose title is general manager. Noting that Omeka is privately held, Kaushansky declined to quantify Adamov's ownership, other than to say, "Yes, he had an equity stake in the company. . . . He is one of the owners." USEC executives said they hired Omeka to gain the consulting services of Kaushansky, a nuclear engineer and Russian immigrant who speaks English and Russian fluently. Until the report of the Duma's Anti-Corruption Committee began circulating, they said they had no idea of Adamov's involvement with Omeka. No Attempt to Identify Ownership of Firm Charles B. Yulish, a USEC spokesman and vice president, acknowledged that the company did not attempt to identify the ownership of Omeka before hiring the firm. Yulish said this was consistent with standard practices at USEC. Upon learning of Adamov's involvement with Omeka, the USEC executives said they had an in-house auditor review the contract and Kaushansky's performance. The audit, they said, upheld the propriety of the arrangements. "There's nothing on its face or there's nothing behind the face that warrants looking at it askance, in terms of whether monies were paid for favors or for work that wasn't performed," Yulish said. The hiring of Omeka was handled by Sewell, who was and remains USEC's chief negotiator with Adamov's former ministry on the national security agreement. Sewell said officials from Tenex were the first to recommend Kaushansky's services, and that he relied on their word that Omeka was a bona fide entity. Kaushansky told The Times that Tenex hired Omeka at some point before the company's contract with USEC. Sewell said he was surprised when he learned, through the Duma report that began circulating in early 2001, about Adamov's ownership stake in Omeka. Should Kaushansky have disclosed Adamov's role to USEC? "I wish he had," Sewell said. Company spokesman Yulish said USEC would not comment regarding whether it would have hired Omeka if the executives had known of Adamov's role. Yet Adamov's involvement with Omeka was less than a secret: On March 26, 1999, Energy Daily, a well-known industry publication in the U.S., reported that Adamov, his wife and Kaushansky had founded Omeka in the Pittsburgh suburb of Monroeville. In April 1999, this report was cited in the Moscow Times, an English-language daily. Yulish said that USEC subscribed to Energy Daily. But he said the article, headlined "Russian Atomic Minister is Card-Carrying U.S. Capitalist," was not included in the daily summary of news clippings that USEC distributed among its employees. Yulish, Sewell and USEC's general counsel, Robert J. Moore, said the national security agreement between the U.S. and Russia encourages USEC to pursue joint ventures with the Russians. Kaushansky, while acknowledging Adamov's ownership in Omeka, said his partner ceased any operational role upon becoming atomic energy minister in 1998. "He had no control over it," said Kaushansky, who spoke with The Times by phone and at an office building in downtown Pittsburgh. Kaushansky said that he doubted that Adamov had been aware of Omeka's contract with USEC. Official Was in Position to Influence Talks This much is not in dispute: Adamov and his subordinates were positioned to influence the outcome of the Russians' negotiations with USEC regarding the Megatons to Megawatts accord. And in May 2000--less than five months after hiring Adamov's firm--representatives of USEC say the Russians tentatively agreed to new financial terms that were advantageous to USEC. However, the terms were not ratified by both governments before Adamov left his ministry post. They remain unresolved to this day, although USEC and Tenex recently submitted new pricing terms to both governments. The new terms are also considered beneficial to USEC. _ _ _ Times staff writer Carol J. Williams in Moscow and researcher Janet Lundblad in Los Angeles contributed to this report. Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 32 Bush's New Nuclear Weapon Plan: A Shot at Nonproliferation The Nation 03/11/2002 @ 4:09pm After George W. Bush's tough talk about the "axis of evil" unnerved allies--and forced the Administration to dispense assurances it was not about to go halfcocked after Iran, Iraq and North Korea--the White House has once again supplied the international community reason for the jitters, thanks to its new Nuclear Posture Review. The classified report, first revealed by The Los Angeles Times and then front-paged by The New York Times, is the Pentagon's master plan for developing and deploying nuclear weapons. The document, which lists contingencies in which nuclear arms might be used, notes that the United States might have to resort to nuclear weapons during "an Iraqi attack on Israel, or its neighbors, or a North Korean attack on South Korea or a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan." (The latter, of course, would be a confrontation with China.) The report also states, "Iran, Syria and Libya are among the countries that could be involved in immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies" that would require "nuclear strike capabilities," and it states that the United States could launch a nuclear assault to destroy stocks of weapons of mass destruction, such as biological and chemical arms. The report certainly will not bolster Bush's image abroad, for it will cause people to wonder if--shades of Ronald Reagan!--this administration is planning for winnable nuclear wars against nations that do not possess nuclear weapons. This leak will also probably cause headaches for Vice President Dick Cheney when he travels to the Middle East this week. He'll want to talk war on terrorism, and the heads of state might be more interested in his ideas about targeting nuclear weapons in their neighborhood. The report is also the latest step in what seems to be a Bush administration campaign to undermine a key foundation of the international nuclear nonproliferation order. The prospect of using--or preparing to use--nuclear weapons against nations that do not possess them has long been a delicate matter. Nobody expects the Pentagon not to plan for the horrific possibility of nuclear war with another nuclear-armed state. But since 1978 the United States has tried to reassure the world that (more or less) it would not launch nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear-weapon nation. The point of this declaration was to encourage non-nuclear states to sign and abide by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Washington would have a difficult time pressing other nations to forego nuclear weapons, if it reserved the right to blast these countries with its own nuclear arsenal. This US position--known as "negative security assurances" in arms-control parlance--came with loopholes. Here's how Secretary of State Warren Christopher described it in 1995: the United States "will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons except in case of an invasion or any other attack on the United States, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies, or on a state towards which it has a security commitment, carried out or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon state in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon state." That is, if a non-nuclear state that has signed the NPT finds itself in an armed conflict with the United States on its own (without being in league with a nuclear-weapon state), then the United States could not hurl nuclear bombs at it. Here's the rub: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea have each signed the NPT. Which means that in a mano-a-mano war against, say, Iraq, U.S. war-managers could not go nuclear. This policy restriction has been a sore point for conservatives for years. Several weeks before the Nuclear Posture Review earned headlines, John Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, took a significant, but little-noticed, swipe at negative security assurances. In an interview with Arms Control Today magazine, Bolton, for years a right-wing opponent of many arms treaties, was asked if Warren Christopher's 1995 statement remained the policy of the Bush administration. Bolton replied, "I don't think we're of the view that this kind of approach is necessarily the most productive." He noted that the administration's emphasis was not "on the rhetorical" but on "the actual change in our military posture," which would be "embodied in the outcome of the Nuclear Posture Review." The interviewers from Arms Control Today pressed him, asking, "So, right now, the Bush administration would not make a commitment to non-nuclear-weapon states...that it would not use nuclear weapons?" Bolton answered: "I don't think we have any intention of using nuclear weapons in circumstances that I can foresee in the days ahead of us. The point is that the kind of rhetorical approach that you are describing doesn't seem to me to be terribly helpful in analyzing what our security needs may be in the real world, and what we are doing, instead of chit-chatting is making changes in our force structures." (Making changes? You bet.) In his responses, Bolton did not acknowledge the role of negative security assurances in the NPT process. It was as if he believed such statements were nothing more than conversational niceties. Which might be true from the perspective of other nations. But if these nations are going to be encouraged by such statements from Washington, then these declarations have great value. Bolton is the Bush administration's key person--its soul--on arms control issues, and his remarks seemed to mark an abrupt turn-about in a long-standing policy on a highly sensitive topic. But the administration tried to dance its way out of the corner. Shortly after the interview, during the daily briefing of State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, a reporter asked Boucher to explain Bolton's comments and wondered, "Are you now prepared to nuke un-nuked countries?" Boucher claimed "Bolton was reiterating...a policy that the United States government has had since the 1970s." This was exactly wrong. Bolton had dismissed that policy. Then Boucher repeated the statement that Christopher had issued in 1995. So policy reversed was unreversed. But maybe not. Boucher added a caveat, noting that the U.S. "will do whatever is necessary to deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its allies, and its interests." He asserted that "those kind of statements have been made repeatedly since the 1970s," and he quoted a 1996 remark from then-Defense Secretary William Perry, who said that if the United States was attacked by chemical weapons, "we could have a devastating response without the use of nuclear weapons, but we would not forswear that possibility." In covering for Bolton and claiming nothing had changed, Boucher appeared to have stretched the weapons-of-mass-destruction loophole. He was not only saying, as Perry did, that nuclear weapons could be used in retaliation after a chemical weapons attack against the United States; he was warning that nuclear arms might be used preemptively to prevent such an attack. And that is indeed the policy contained in the new Nuclear Posture Review. If the United States has (or says it has) reason to believe a non-nuclear-weapon state is amassing biological weapons for use against the United States, then that country qualifies for the nuclear hit list. Bolton, despite Boucher's spin, was indeed speaking for an administration that does not see merit in declaring we-won't-nuke-the-un-nuked in order to enhance nonproliferation efforts. As Bush's disregard of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty demonstrated, this crowd is drawn more to unilateral force decisions than to multilateral nonproliferation endeavors. The more worrisome portions of the Nuclear Posture review may only be what-ifs. But in nuclear diplomacy, what-ifs and words do count. The Bush administration's new weapon plan is a shot against the nations he has rhetorically targeted but also a strike against governments and diplomats that take nuclear nonproliferation seriously. © 2002 The Nation Company, L.P. Permissions ***************************************************************** 33 Gulf News says: Their own worst enemy Zawya. In one move, the U.S. has reinforced the image put about by its enemies that is the greatest threat to world peace, exactly the opposite of what the Bush administration has been trying to portray. It is ridiculous that the Bush administration is aiming nuclear weapons at countries with which it is trying to befriend. The Russians and Chinese feel betrayed; the Iranians are wondering why they have tried to achieve better relations with the U.S.; and the Syrians are horrified, just as they have been moving into the mainstream of diplomacy; the Iraqis will be delighted that their wilder statements on America have been proved real. In addition, the Pentagon wants to use nuclear weapons on a battlefield level, which creates far more opportunities to use the weapon of last resort. For example, they could have dropped a nuclear shell into the Tora Bora caves, and given the worst possible example to the two most recent nuclear states, Pakistan and India. Both these states would have drawn the lesson that tactical use of nuclear weapons was acceptable. Nuclear weapons are too awful to contemplate as part of the normal armoury of any nation because the destruction they offer is so total and all embracing. The Cold War is over, and the balance of terror is not required. Better understanding between nations is far more effective than aiming nuclear weapons at friends. Gulf News says: Quickly scotch the rumours British Prime Minister Tony Blair has much explaining to do to his cabinet, to Britons, to Americans and to the world. For reports emanating from London state America has requested the UK to supply troops to assist in the ouster of Saddam Hussain. Some 25,000 troops are being mentioned, to supplement the estimated 250,000 force required. Alternatives are also being flagged, such as a Special Forces unit, like that presently operating in Afghanistan; or an intensification of air strikes on Iraq, but between the "no-go" areas. The British government quickly denied all such rumours. But then they would as it is probably another attempt at floating a trial balloon to judge public reaction. Yet Blair need look no further than his own cabinet to know public opinion: several ministers have threatened their resignation if an attack on Iraq is carried out; over 58 Labour members of parliament have indicated likewise. Also, a recent survey has shown 27 per cent of the British public oppose any further action against Iraq with nearly the same number preferring diplomacy instead. Blair owes it to his people to speak out loud and clear that on this issue, he is not America¹s lackey and cannot do its bidding. © Gulf News 2002 ght © 2002 Zawya.com Ltd. All rights reserve ***************************************************************** 34 U.S. tries to ease global anxieties over nuclear plan Chicago Tribune | March 12, 2002 By John Diamond Washington Bureau Published March 12, 2002 WASHINGTON -- Trying to quiet international uproar, the Bush administration said Monday that it has contingency plans that involve possible use of nuclear weapons but that the United States does not actually target or threaten specific countries. Russia, China and other countries expressed concern and even shock about leaked reports over the weekend of the classified portions of the administration's Nuclear Posture Review. The document raises the possibility of "immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies" arising involving Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Libya. An Iraqi attack on Israel, a North Korean invasion of South Korea or a Chinese attack against Taiwan are among the scenarios that might involve U.S. consideration of a nuclear strike, according to the report. It also says that conflict with Russia, while a remote possibility, could re-emerge as a threat should relations between the two countries deteriorate. International reaction was immediate, not only from foreign capitals but from world markets. U.S. oil prices spiked upward Monday amid increased concern about U.S. military action against Iraq, the world's second-largest oil producer. Top officials from Russia and China demanded that Washington explain itself while some Western nations' leaders referred to the document as routine military planning. Cheney: Reports exaggerated In London, Vice President Dick Cheney sought to portray media accounts of the posture review as exaggerated and alarmist. "Right now, today, the United States on a day-to-day basis does not target nuclear weapons on any nation," said Cheney in a joint appearance with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "The notion that I've seen reported in the press that somehow this means we are preparing pre-emptive nuclear strikes against seven countries, I believe was the way it was reported. I'd say that's a bit over the top." Cheney acknowledged that the report, which amounts to White House guidance to the Pentagon on nuclear contingency planning, does ask military planners to "consider the possible threats to the United States from those nations that are seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction," including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and North Korea. "The question of targeting, though, isn't really addressed in the nuclear posture review," Cheney said. A phrase used by Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell--that the U.S. does not target any of these states "on a day-to-day basis"--appears designed to provide the administration some room to maneuver. Although specific missiles may not have specific target coordinates programmed into their memories, the Pentagon may well have contingency plans for use of strategic or tactical nuclear weapons against these countries. Specifically, the posture review envisions greater use of lower-yield nuclear weapons against fortified targets such as underground bunkers, caves or tunnel complexes, a nagging and persistent problem for U.S. air power from the Persian Gulf war a decade ago through the fighting in Afghanistan today. Word of the sensitive portions of the posture review leaked just as Cheney was beginning a 10-day, 12-country tour of the Middle East. After his stop in London, the trip was to take him to Jordan on Tuesday and include stops in Yemen, Kuwait, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries in the region. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Monday that Moscow expects explanations from a "higher level" than televised comments by Cheney and Powell as to the actual meaning of the U.S. posture review. Countries `deeply shocked' Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Monday that he would raise the issue of the report when he meets with Rumsfeld this week in Washington. In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi said that "China, like other countries, is deeply shocked" to be in the group of seven named as possible targets in U.S. nuclear contingency planning. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the Bush administration has consulted closely with key foreign governments about the nuclear review, a document completed in January. Only close allies, however, got the full classified briefing. On Capitol Hill on Monday, a senior CIA analyst described the frustration the U.S. is encountering in preventing countries such as Russia and China from selling or trading their knowledge of missile technology and nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to countries hostile to the U.S. "Russia is helping Iran more than Russia is willing to admit," Robert Walpole, a senior CIA intelligence officer, told the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. Such assistance has been going on for years, unabated despite constant U.S. complaints. It has reached the point, Walpole said, where the CIA now worries about "second-level" proliferation from countries such as Iran now seeking to trade on the know-how they have acquired from larger powers. Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune ***************************************************************** 35 Nuclear Use as 'Option' Clouds Issue March 12, 2002 By DOYLE McMANUS, TIMES STAFF WRITER WASHINGTON -- During the Cold War, the purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons was straightforward: to deter an attack on the United States by the other nuclear superpower, the Soviet Union. But now the most frightening threats to American security come not from nuclear powers, but from terrorists such as Osama bin Laden and rogue states such as Iraq. The Pentagon's proposed new nuclear strategy, outlined in a secret report that came to light last week, is intended to make atomic weapons useful again--by making them threatening to a new set of enemies. The report, called the Nuclear Posture Review, proposed building a new generation of atomic weapons designed not to destroy the nuclear arsenals of Russia or China but to attack underground command posts and biological weapon facilities. The overall purpose, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote, is "to provide the president with a range of options to defeat any aggressor." But the study has provoked vigorous debate among nuclear strategists on several counts. Should the United States use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear forces, a significant change in policy? Will the new strategy make it more likely that the United States--or any other nuclear power, a group that includes China, India and Pakistan--would use atomic weapons in a crisis? And do we even know that nuclear weapons would successfully deter terrorists or tyrants? "We thought we could deter the Soviet Union, because the Soviets had a lot of people and other assets to protect," said Hans Binnendijk, a nuclear weapon expert at the Pentagon's National Defense University. "But we're not sure that theology works anymore. . . . Rogue states and non-state actors [such as terrorists] have less to lose." Bush administration officials acknowledge that it will be difficult to deter attacks by rogue states or terrorists. But they said the report's emphasis on new kinds of nuclear weapons is intended to make that kind of deterrence possible--not to make a nuclear war easier to start. "We all want to make the use of weapons of mass destruction less likely," National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said in a television interview. "The way that you do that is to send a very strong signal to anyone who might try to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States that [they] would be met with a devastating response." But liberal critics argue that the administration's new course is hazardous too. "This is a very dangerous policy," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "The test is: How would we feel if other countries adopted the same policy? I'm not talking about rogue states. What if India developed nuclear weapons to go after terrorists in the Himalayas? Would we feel safer then?" Administration officials said the new policy, which is still evolving, wasn't designed principally to deal with terrorists but rather with the threat of biological weapons, especially in the hands of a regime such as Saddam Hussein's in Iraq. A Counter to Threat of Biological Warfare If a hostile regime attacked the United States with a virulent biological agent such as smallpox, the casualty figures could resemble those from a nuclear exchange, one official said. "Because the facts of biological weapons are so enormous, we have to do all we can to deter their use," a senior official said. "One of the ways you deter is to make it clear you're not ruling any options off the table." Thus, in the administration's view, building new nuclear weapons designed for use against smaller countries doesn't make their use any more likely. Instead, it should make their use less likely by deterring attacks against the United States. The same logic is behind the Pentagon's interest in building new "Earth-penetrating weapons" with nuclear warheads to destroy underground bunkers, such as those Bin Laden used in Afghanistan. "If we were in a conventional war with a country that used biological weapons against our soldiers or our homeland, I can envision a president retaliating by using these weapons against their leaders," Binnendijk said. "And if that becomes a credible threat--if their leaders know it's there--then it also becomes a deterrent." But critics don't buy that argument. "The administration has . . . eliminated the line between nuclear weapons and chemical and biological weapons," Cirincione said. "They talk about 'weapons of mass destruction' as if mustard gas were the equivalent of a nuclear weapon that could destroy a city. It just isn't true. "The United States used to tell countries that if they did not acquire nuclear weapons, we would not attack them with our nuclear weapons. This administration has abandoned that policy. . . . Now there's no reason for other countries to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons." U.S. military strategists considered using nuclear weapons several times in the last half century but always shied away. During the Cold War, Pentagon officials considered using nuclear weapons against Communist forces in China, North Korea and North Vietnam. And the United States stationed thousands of nuclear artillery shells and other tactical nuclear weapons in Western Europe for use in the event of a Soviet ground invasion. In 1991, President Bush warned that he might retaliate with nuclear weapons if Iraqi leader Hussein used chemical weapons against U.S. forces. But Bush later wrote that he never intended to carry out the threat. In 1996, during the Clinton administration, Defense Secretary William J. Perry renewed the warning, saying a nation that used chemical weapons "would have to fear the consequences of a response from any weapon in our inventory." In a sense, one official said, the Bush administration is merely taking that policy and calling for new weapons to make it more effective. Some Want Debate to Focus on Strategic Issues Administration officials did not seem especially perturbed by the leak of the Nuclear Posture Review, even though the report was officially classified. Some said privately that a national debate on nuclear strategy might be healthy. But they complained that newspapers that reported on the issue focused on the report's list of seven countries as nuclear targets--Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya--more than larger strategic issues. "The main thing we're trying to do is to reduce our dependence on nuclear weapons," a senior official said. "That report isn't just about new nuclear systems. It also says we should rely more on conventional weapons and on defensive systems." Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 36 Put up yer nukes WorkingForChange! Bill Berkowitz WorkingForChange 03.11.02 The Pentagon's nuclear dreams are our nightmares A political bombshell blew up in the faces of Pentagon officials this past weekend when the Los Angles Times revealed contingency plans for using nuclear weapons to attack seven countries. Is the Pentagon on steroids? One nuclear arms expert told the Times that "Dr. Strangelove is clearly still alive in the Pentagon." This story appears to be bigger than the Pentagon's ill-advised idea of creating an Office of Strategic Influence -- or as John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harper's Magazine put it, the Office of Strategic Lying. As I write this on Sunday morning, the nuclear weapons contingency story is today's most emailed story at Yahoo. The LA Times report, coupled with a mid-February report in the San Jose Mercury on how the United States proposes to deal with cyberterrorism, makes one question whether the contingency thinking/planning going on in Washington is a product of testosterone run amok. Perhaps these folks have too much time on their hands! In an article headlined "U.S. Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms," LA Times reporter Paul Richtor writes: "The Bush Administration has directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries and to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations, according to a classified Pentagon report." Unlike some other recent administration schemes, this time around Congress cannot claim that it is in the dark. "The secret report," says Richtor, was given to Congress on Jan. 8, and it contends that "the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria." Richter: "It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments." The phrase "surprising developments" is ambiguous. It leaves the nuclear option door open to just about anything that might be considered a "surprising development." And, as we have seen since September 11, all sorts of things have surprised the government. The terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- surprise. Anthrax sent to several Congressmen -- surprise. The kidnap and killing of journalist Daniel Pearl -- surprise. The recent remobilization of Al Qaeda and Taliban troops -- surprise. You get the point. None of these events were either expected by or preventable by the Pentagon. They were all surprises. Pentagon cooks up nuclear nightmare -- this time the surprise is on us! Some nuclear arms experts find the prospects chilling. "This is dynamite," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear arms expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "I can imagine what these countries are going to be saying at the U.N." John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World, told the Los Angeles Times: "They're trying desperately to find new uses for nuclear weapons, when their uses should be limited to deterrence. This is very, very dangerous talk." (Read more about the Pentagon's view of its "Nuclear Posture Review.") On Sunday morning, March 10, Secretary of State Colin Powell told CBS News' "Face the Nation" that there was "less than meets the eye and less than meets the headline with respect to the story. We are always reviewing our options," he said, adding that the Nuclear Posture Review in question was required by Congress. Powell, who it seems has been out of the loop or reading from the wrong script several times since the beginning of the "war on terrorism," added: "We should not get all carried away with some sense that the United States is planning to use nuclear weapons in some contingency that is coming up in the near future," Powell added. "It is not the case. What the Pentagon has done with this study is sound, military, conceptual planning and the president will take that planning and he will give his directions on how to proceed." Rumsfeld's early warning Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's support for the nuclear option comes as no surprise. In a mid-September appearance on ABC's This Week, Sam Donaldson asked Rumsfeld: "Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" Rumsfeld responded: "You know, that subject -- we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible." Donaldson: "I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no." Rumsfeld: "The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism. And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities -- ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare -- these are the kinds of things that are used in this era, the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions." Rumseld's revelations square with the thinking of the Heritage Foundation, the powerful right-think Washington, DC-based think tank. Jack Spencer, a Heritage defense analyst, said, "We need to have a credible deterrence against regimes involved in international terrorism and development of weapons of mass destruction." He told the Times that the contents of the report did not surprise him and represent "the right way to develop a nuclear posture for a post-Cold War world." Military response to cyberterrorism Now to the other disturbing, and less publicized story. In mid-February in an article headlined "White House expert says U.S. may retaliate with military if terrorists try online attacks," the San Jose Mercury reported that "The United States might retaliate militarily if foreign countries or terrorist groups abroad try to strike this country through the Internet," this according to the White House technology adviser Richard Clarke. Clarke told a Senate hearing on cyberterrorism that "We reserve the right to respond in any way appropriate: through covert action, through military action, any one of the tools available to the president.'' Clarke also named several countries where cyber-attacks might emanate from. He said that Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, Russia and other countries "already are having people trained in Internet warfare. So you have your basic "axis of evil" countries looped together with China and Russia, two countries consistently praised by the president for their support in the "war on terrorism." Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising; the playing field for "war on terrorism" allies and enemies is a continually shifting landscape. Clarke refused to specify what type of attack might lead to a military response. He told reporters "that's the kind of ambiguity that we like to keep intentionally to create some deterrence.'' Should there be a concern over cyberterrorism? Absolutely. According to the White House budget office, the government will spend about $2.7 billion this fiscal year on computer and network security, a figure projected to rise to $4.2 billion in the 2003 federal budget. In its first report to Congress on computer information security, the budget office reported that “many agencies have significant deficiencies in every important area of security.'' Back in September, when Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) cast the only vote against giving the president a blank check in his war on terrorism, I doubt that she was prescient enough to foresee either of these two contingency plans. Despite her resounding victory in the March 5 Democratic primary, Ms. Lee took the heat from so-called patriots across the country -- she received death threats, ugly email, was branded a traitor by right-wing ideologues and for a short while, became the number one "poster child" for the conservative movement. (She's since been replaced by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.) These days, her lone dissenting voice once again sounds like the voice of reason. Epilogue: Re the report on the plot to use a stolen Russian nuclear bomb against New York City: CNN reported on March 6, that U.S. officials called the person who was the source of that juicy bit of intelligence "a fabricator" with "delusions of grandeur." The official, commenting on the original story -- first reported in Time magazine -- said, "The only scandal here is that the Defense Intelligence Agency ever used this guy as a source of anything." Bill Berkowitz is a longtime observer of the conservative movement. His WorkingForChange column Conservative Watch documents the strategies, players, institutions, victories and defeats of the American Right. To see more of his work, click here. To respond to this article, report a problem or provide general feedback to the editors of this site, click here. The phrase "surprising developments" is ambiguous. It leaves the nuclear option door open to just about anything. © 2002 WorkingForChange.com Printer-friendly Version © 2002 Working Assets. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 37 'Sound military conceptual planning ' ... of a nuclear war Irish Newspapers YES, it's only contingency planning, an exercise conducted by any self-respecting national defence ministry to confront "just in case" scenarios - what Colin Powell, the Secretary of State called simply "sound military conceptual planning." But as the heated reaction around the world yesterday proves, the leak of America's new thinking on nuclear weapons has far reaching and, for some, frightening implications. To allay these anxieties, it will take a good deal more than yesterday's assurance from Vice-President Dick Cheney that the US was not planning a pre-emptive nuclear strikes against anyone. Technically that may be so. But the Pentagon blueprint worries arms control experts on two scores. First, by urging new and less powerful weapons that create less fall-out, the US gives the impression it is seeking to lower the nuclear threshold - to turn weapons regarded as the unthinkable last resort of deterrence into useable tools of warfare. In the dry language of the review, "greater flexibility is needed with respect to nuclear force and planning nuclear attack options that vary in scale, scope and purpose will complement other military capabilities". As such the ideas revisit the old notions of battlefield weapons and neutron bombs, criticised in their time for blurring the distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. Once even a small weapon had been exploded in anger, it was feared, nothing would stand in the way of escalation to the most fearful weapons. The reaction from directly interested parties was swift. Iran predictably claimed the blueprint was further proof of America's desire to intimidate and impose its will on the rest of the world. China, one of the seven countries singled out, suggested Washington wanted to return to the Cold War. One Russian politician acidly commented that since September 11 Americans "have somewhat lost touch with the reality in which they live." The hypothetical new generation of weapons for which the Pentagon yearns would be able to take out specific targets, in countries which do not have nuclear arms themselves (Libya, Syria and Iran, to name three of the seven specifically mentioned in the review). (Independent News Service) Rupert Cornwell in Washington © Copyright Unison ***************************************************************** 38 Iran: Khatami expresses concern at US nuclear threat BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Mar 12, 2002 Vienna, 12 March: President Mohammad Khatami here Tuesday [12 March] expressed concern at reports that the US military had been directed to prepare contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against certain countries, including Iran. "Today, the volume of destructive weapons has increased to the extent that we have to worry about the whole humankind if a (nuclear) war breaks out," he said in a meeting with Austrian Foreign Minister Mrs Benita Ferrero-Waldner. According to the Los Angeles Times, the White House had asked the US military to draw up contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. "It is deplorable to witness terror and violence instead of peace and coexistence in the year of 'dialogue among civilizations' and the start of the third millennium," Khatami said of his own brainchild which was announced as an international theme by the UN in 2001. The philosopher-president also voiced his views on terrorism and ways to confront it. "Terrorism must not be used as a pretext to commit more violence in the world," Khatami went on to say. The Iranian president hailed European countries as well as Russia and China for opposition to aggressive rhetoric of US officials, including President George W. Bush's branding of Iran as part of an 'axis of evil' along with Iraq and North Korea. "I am confident that all the people around the world, at the bottom of their hearts, want peace, wisdom and fundamental solutions to world issues," he said. Khatami hailed Austria's positive stance towards the Islamic Republic and described cooperation between Iran and the European Union as 'important'. "Austria has always practised a positive stance in promoting ties between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the European Union," he said. The Iranian president also called for further upgrading ties between Tehran and Vienna, saying he hoped his visit would lead to the enhancement of relations in all fields. Waldner said that Austria welcomes promotion of ties with Iran in all areas. She described as 'suitable and good' the level of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Khatami left Tehran Monday for a two-day state visit to Vienna... Source: IRNA news agency, Tehran, in English 1359 gmt 12 Mar 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 39 UK: Itchy fingers on the trigger Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | The weekend's leaked Pentagon report has underlined the growing number of US advisers who now advocate the use of nuclear weapons Richard Norton-Taylor Tuesday March 12, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] No doubt Dick Cheney will have told Tony Blair yesterday not to worry about the Pentagon's contingency plans, leaked to American newspapers, for the possible use of nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. A string of senior US officials toured television stations on Sunday, trying to play down the implications of the 56-page "nuclear posture review". "What the Pentagon has done with this study is sound, military, conceptual planning, and the president will take that planning and he will give his directions on how to proceed," said Colin Powell, US secretary of state. Richard Myers, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said the review "preserves for the president all the options that a president would want to have in case this country or our friends and allies were attacked with weapons of mass destruction". The Pentagon's report forsees the use of nuclear weapons in three situations: against targets able to withstand attacks by non-nuclear weapons; in retaliation for an attack with nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments". It refers to a possible "Iraqi attack on Israel or its neighbours, or a North Korean attack on South Korea or a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan". Referring to the Cuban missile crisis, the report says the US might be caught by surprise if a hostile country suddenly showed it had ac quired weapons of mass destruction. "North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya are among the countries that could be involved in immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies," it says. US military planners and nuclear scientists developed new types of tactical nuclear bombs during the Clinton administration. In particular they designed the low-yield B61-11 bomb designed to penetrate underground bunkers, which have been deployed in Europe since 1997. Advocates of the use of such small nuclear weapons claim their environmental impact would be limited. Yet the Washington-based Project of Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) says that an attack on Saddam Hussein's presidential bunker in Baghdad with a B61-11 bomb "could cause upwards of 20,000 deaths". Even Nato admits: "Any nuclear weapons use would be absolutely catastrophic in human and environmental terms... Such human cost would ensure an enormous political cost for any nation that chose to use nuclear weapons, particularly in a first strike." One keen advocate of small, precision-guided, low-yield, nuclear weapons is Stephen Younger, a former director of the Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory and now head of America's Defence Threat Reduction Agency, responsible for "counter- proliferation" programmes. "Nuclear weapons pack an incredible destructive force into a small, deliverable package," Younger wrote last year in a paper entitled Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century. A report published last year by America's National Institute for Public Policy, a conservative thinktank, declared that "nuclear weapons can... be used in counter-force attacks that are intended to neutralise enemy military capabilities". Authors of the report include Stephen Cambone, now a senior Pentagon policy-making official, Stephen Hadley, Bush's deputy national security adviser, Robert Joseph, a member of the national security council, and William Schneider, one of Bush's defence advisers. Bush's advisers argue that by advocating the possible use of nuclear weapons, and abandoning the cold war concept of mutual assured destruction (Mad) - replacing it by the prospect of "unilateral assured destruction" - they are simply offering a more effective deterrence. Yet the blurring of the lines between nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, says the PSR, "provides the best incentive imaginable for a potential foe of the US to move to development of nuclear weapons, since they would suffer the same consequences for nuclear use as for a chemical or biological attack". Moreover, it adds, "nuclear weapons are likely to have a stronger deterrent effect on US action as the effects of nuclear use against US targets are likely to be far more serious than any other threat". Proponents of "war-fighting" nuclear weapons counter this argument by saying that they are much more difficult to acquire than biological or chemical weapons. Nevertheless, the Pentagon's policy shift can only encourage nuclear proliferation and undermine the non-proliferation treaty, whose signatories, including the US, are pledged to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons (the US subsequently pledged not to use nuclear weapons against states that do not possess them). And the development of new nuclear weapons might well lead to a resumption of nuclear testing, finally sabotaging the comprehensive test ban treaty. "The US is desperately worried about the use of weapons of mass destruction against them," says Professor Paul Rogers, defence analyst at Bradford University. "If that ultimately means a pre-emptive strike, then they will do it." He adds: "If the US uses even a low-yield nuclear bomb in a crisis, that still breaks the threshold. The genie would be out of the bottle." And what are the implications of the Pentagon's review for Britain, in particular for the "sub strategic" role - as the government describes it - of its (American) Trident missile system? "It is not necessarily a question we would wish to answer," a British defence official said yesterday. Richard Norton-Taylor is the Guardian's security affairs editor. Email him at richard.norton-taylor@guardian.co.uk [richard.norton-taylor@guardian.co.uk] . Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 40 WAR AND TERROR: THE NEXT PHASE: Pentagon still sees nuclear arms as part of arsenal Financial Times; Mar 12, 2002 By ALEXANDER NICOLL In the minds of most people, the possibility that nuclear weapons could be used in warfare had receded since the end of the cold war era, with even President George W. Bush promising a deep unilateral cut in the US nuclear arsenal. However, the weekend leak of the revised US nuclear posture, indicating nuclear weapons could be used as part of a military operation against specified non-nuclear states, was a reminder that the Pentagon still considers the weapons as an important - and usable - part of its arsenal. Terry Taylor of the International Institute for Strategic Studies said he could not detect a fundamental change in policy from reports of the leaked review. The US and Britain have adhered to a policy of ambiguity about circumstances in which they might use nuclear weapons, but serious threat of biological or chemical attack could be one. The possibility of use of nuclear arms remained "extremely remote", Mr Taylor said. However, other defence experts and anti-nuclear organisations were worried by what they saw as a shift away from such ambiguity. "The list of countries (that could be targeted) is extremely worrying," said Christine Kucia of the British American Security Information Council in Washington. "This is a fairly significant change in policy." The Bush administration is now seeking to adjust US capabilities away from a cold war posture. On the one hand, it is converting four Trident submarines carrying nuclear missiles to carry conventional weapons, and plans at least to halve the overall nuclear arsenal. According to the Washington-based Arms Control Association, the US still has 7,013 nuclear warheads. On the other hand, the Pentagon is researching new nuclear weapons for use against particular targets, including "low-yield" bunker-busting bombs. These could be used to hit targets deep underground, such as command bunkers and stores of biological and chemical weapons. According to Jane's Intelligence Review, "delivery of an earth-penetrating nuclear warhead to even 30m underground results in an enormous increase in its destructive power against deeply buried facilities". Dan Plesch of the Royal United Service Institute, a London think-tank, said the environmental effects of such weapons would be hard to contain. He said the review showed the US had reverted to its original view of nuclear weapons as little different from conventional weapons as part of its arsenal. Ms Kucia said conventional weapons had advanced so much in accuracy and potency that they could hit targets more effectively from a military standpoint than nuclear arms. Copyright: The Financial Times Limited 1995-2002 ***************************************************************** 41 Editorial: Keep the nuclear umbrella furled The Taipei Times Online: 2002-03-12 Tuesday, March 12th, 2002 A secret Pentagon policy review for the US Congress that was leaked over the weekend outlines nuclear warfare contingency plans against countries that threaten the US with weapons of mass destruction. The seven potential targets identified in the report are Iran, Iraq, Russia, China, North Korea, Libya and Syria. News stories about the nuclear review have stirred up worldwide controversy, especially in the above-mentioned countries. The review itself should come as no surprise, given that the US, owner of the world's largest conventional and nuclear weapons arsenals, frequently reviews its contingency plans for weapons use. The US has also stressed that it would not use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear nation unless the latter teams up with a nuclear-armed country in attacks against the US or its allies. Both Russia and China are allies in the Washing-ton's war on terror, but their nuclear stockpiles rival those of the US. The two countries are also the biggest exporters of nuclear weapons. In aiming their nuclear weapons at the US, their strategic thinking is exactly the same as that of the US. Such a balance of terror is in fact the foundation for global nuclear security. Since Sept. 11, the security of the US and many other nations has come under the increasing threat of terrorist organizations and state-sponsored terrorism. Washington's preparations for a worst-case scenario is simply a rational response. North Korea, Iran and Iraq are part of the "axis of evil" in the eyes of the US, while Libya and Syria are major sponsors of international terrorism. Some of the seven countries already possess nuclear weapons, while others are in the process of developing them. They all pose a potential threat to regional and global security. If Beijing's leaders are feeling the heat of a US nuclear threat, they should remember that it is exactly how the 23 million people of Taiwan feel living in the crosshairs of more than 300 Chinese missiles every day. The Chinese authorities keep harping on about peaceful unification, but all along they have refused to renounce the use of military force against Taiwan. Instead, China is stepping up development of short-range and medium-range ballistic-missile systems and speeding up the deployment of missiles aimed at Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Southeast Asia. The Chinese authorities have no grounds for complaint about getting a taste of their own medicine. Taiwan has long possessed the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. The fact that it has not made that leap is because of both government policy and US dissuasion. In the 1970s, then president Chiang Ching-kuo (½±¸g°ê) declared that Taiwan would neither develop nor use any nuclear weapons against the Chinese. If Taiwan can exercise such "I am not doing it, but not because I can't" restraint, there is no reason China couldn't follow a similar path. Taiwan should propose making the Taiwan Strait a non-nuclear zone and, through Taiwan-US-China trilateral talks, encourage Beijing to renounce its nuclear threat against Taiwan as a prelude to renouncing all military solutions to the cross-strait issue. A promise from Beijing to make the Strait a non- nuclear zone would not only ease US concerns about a China threat, but would also be a major gesture of goodwill toward the people of Taiwan. It would be a win-win situation for Taiwan, China and the US. This story has been viewed 564 times. URL=[http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/03/12/story/0000127365] Copyright © 1999-2002 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 42 Nuclear Threat in 1995 Went Unheeded Las Vegas SUN Today: March 12, 2002 at 11:05:35 PST U.S. officials received a warning as early as 1995 that Islamic militants were plotting to attack an American nuclear site, but did not pass along the information to the agency that oversees nuclear facilities or to the plants themselves, The Associated Press has learned. The warning came in police interrogations of convicted terrorist Abdul Hakim Murad and from a computer seized in the Philippines from Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. Both men were linked to Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network, and are serving life in prison in the United States for plotting to blow up 12 U.S.-bound airliners. The AP learned of the 1995 warning through secret intelligence documents and interviews with officials in the United States and the Philippines. According to a secret Philippines report, a letter obtained from Yousef's computer indicated he was "planning to attack any nuclear facilities in the U.S. and unspecified targets in France and Great Britain." Yousef, who ran the al-Qaida cell that targeted the World Trade Center in 1993, discussed the plan with Murad when the two met in October 1994 in Quetta, Pakistan, according to statements Murad made to interrogators. But Murad, who was arrested in Manila in January 1995, said he was unaware of the specifics of the plan to attack nuclear facilities. Rodolfo Mendoza, a former police official in Manila who was among those who supervised Murad's interrogations, said the details on the nuclear threat were immediately shared with U.S. authorities. "During a debriefing session, Murad told us about this planned attack on an unspecified nuclear facility. We passed on that information from Murad to them (U.S. officials)," Mendoza said. Murad also told investigators that he and other Middle Eastern students took pilot training at U.S. flight schools in the early 1990s and that he had proposed a suicide mission in which he would fly a jetliner into a federal building. That information, provided six years before the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, also was shared with FBI agents in Manila. An FBI agent who accompanied Murad back to the United States for trial, testified in 1996 that Murad spoke about plans for a nuclear attack. Victor Dricks, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the government agency charged with overseeing the country's 104 nuclear facilities had not heard of such a warning during 1995. "We did not know of any credible threat against any specific facility that we would take seriously enough to take some action on," he said. Carl Crawford, manager of nuclear communications at Energy Nuclear, which operates nine reactors in the South and the Northeast, said that in 1995 the company "never received any formal communications from the NRC or any other federal law enforcement agency regarding such threats. We never received any request to go on high alert." In January, the NRC alerted nuclear power plants that the government had received a tip from an al-Qaida operative that terrorists might be planning a suicide attack on a power reactor. An FBI official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said at the time that the NRC had acted on old information that had been deemed not credible. But the NRC communication said the agency decided to issue the alert after an FBI agent in Washington state contacted a nuclear power plant about the threat. The NRC ordered the nation's nuclear plants operating in 31 states to their highest alert level after Sept. 11 and at least seven states are using National Guard troops to help secure reactors. The Federal Aviation Administration banned private planes from flying within 11 miles of nuclear plants and the U.S. Coast Guard is patrolling the Great Lakes to keep ships away from plants on the coastline. Some lakes with power plants on their shores have been closed to recreational activities altogether, although officials have said that at least portions of the lakes will be reopened soon. Exelon Nuclear, which owns 10 plants, closed three Illinois cooling lakes after the attacks. A spokeswoman said the plants were reevaluating security, including how close boaters could get to the facilities. In France, surface-to-air missiles were positioned near a major nuclear reprocessing plant and a military base for nuclear submarines six weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks. Radar systems capable of scouting out airplanes flying at low altitudes were stationed there as well. Officials have declined to say what France was doing to protect its 20 nuclear power plants from terrorist attacks. France gets more than three-fourths of its power from nuclear energy. Hungary also has placed surface-to-air rockets near the country's only nuclear power plant, about 60 miles south of the capital, Budapest. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 43 Strike Two: threats made against Iraq TONY Blair and Dick Cheney, the US vice president, yesterday issued a grave warning about the threat posed by the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. However, they insisted no decisions had been taken on action against Iraq. As concern grew that Britain and America were plotting more military strikes, the two allies moved to assure their critics any action by the international coalition against terrorism would be "calm and measured". After Downing Street talks with the vice president, the prime minister said: "There is a threat from Saddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction that he has acquired. It is not in doubt at all. "We have also said again right from the outset that the threat of weapons of mass destruction will have to be addressed. No decisions, of course, have been taken yet on how we proceed, but this is a time when we discuss how important it is that the issue of weapons of mass destruction is properly dealt with." Mr Cheney said Washington was concerned about the "potential marriage" between terrorist organisations like Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network and states that were acquiring weapons of mass destruction. He refused to speculate on any future military action but offered assurances America was not targeting countries such as Russia and China for nuclear attack. "The United States on a day-to-day basis does not target nuclear weapons on any nation," Mr Cheney said. "The notion ... we are preparing pre-emptive nuclear strikes against seven countries . . . I would say that is a bit over the top." The Los Angeles Times has reported that a US defence department study outlined a contingency plan for using nuclear weapons against at least seven countries: China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. It prompted calls for clarification from Igor Ivanov, Russian foreign minister. Mr Ivanov said despite explanations from senior US officials, he wanted additional assurances that America had no plans to use nuclear weapons against Russia or other states. China, a fellow nuclear power, also expressed deep shock at the report and demanded an explanation. Mr Cheney said America would "continue to consult with Britain and other members of the coalition" about any future action. The vice-president was in London ahead of an 11-nation tour of the Middle East, beginning in Jordan today. Mr Blair will have detailed discussions about the next phase in the war against terror - including any possible action against Iraq - with George Bush, the US president, in Texas next month. Well aware of the internal Labour Party dissent about any future action against Iraq, the prime minister said yesterday: "What's important is that we consider, reflect and deliberate." The prime minister also stressed the importance of seeking an end to the Middle East conflict. Increased tension in the Middle East led to a rise in the price of oil yesterday, giving rise to fears of higher prices at the pump. - March 12th ***************************************************************** 44 Analysis: Why the US won't let go BBC News | AMERICAS | 11 March, 2002, 19:06 [US President George W Bush shakes hands with military leaders from foreign countries ] Bush is looking for foreign support in his war against terror By Paul Reynolds BBC World Affairs correspondent The flags of many nations fluttered in the cold Washington wind behind President Bush as he announced that the second stage of his declared war on terrorism had begun. Mr Bush reflected the mood of the country, which six months on, is still angry and combative And his speech pointed towards the next actual and potential battlefields of that war: the Philippines, where US forces are helping to counter Muslim guerrillas; Georgia, the remote former Soviet state from where Stalin came which faces a threat on its even remoter border; Yemen, which Mr Bush said would not be allowed to become a second Afghanistan and, above all, Iraq. He did not name Iraq. He did not have to. Everyone knows that Iraq is on the list. The only questions are what action will be taken and when. Mr Bush sought to provide an answer to the question why. He claimed that it was now too dangerous to allow rogue states to develop weapons of mass destruction because these could fall into the hands of terrorists and then "blackmail and genocide and chaos" would be unleashed. In the face of such a threat "inaction is not an option" Mr Bush declared. Weaponry link This link between terrorism and states with weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological and nuclear - was at the heart of his speech. [President Bush ] Bush did not mention Iraq, but he did not have to It is the justification Washington and whatever allies it can get will use if they decide to act against Iraq. And it seeks to mend a hole in the American argument. This is that there is no evidence linking Iraq to al-Qaeda and 11 September. Now no evidence is apparently needed. Elsewhere in his speech, a sombre Mr Bush reflected the mood of the country which, six months on, is still angry and combative, heightened by the recent fighting in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan. Mr Bush's approval rating is around or more than 80%. Whatever lies ahead, Americans are, for the moment at least with him. Extraordinary documentary The determination of the country to see this through (and nobody really knows where it is leading, of course) has been made even more solid by an extraordinary television documentary of events inside and outside the World Trade Center on 11 September. [Julia Peterson holds her son Campbell, whose grandfather died on Flight 93 in Pennsylvania] The country is still in mourning The film went out in the United States on the eve of the six-month mark. The BBC will show it on the full anniversary. It makes searing viewing. The film was the work of two French brothers who were making a documentary about a rookie firefighter at a fire station which happened to be nearest the WTC. They were there for months. On the morning of 11 September, one of the brothers went off with a crew to investigate a smell of gas. His camera suddenly picks up the first plane as it smashes into Tower One. That film had been seen before. What happened next had not. The camera follows the firefighters into the lobby of the tower. Bangs are occasionally heard - the bodies of those who jumped landing on the ground outside. In the dark There is chaos in the lobby. Nobody knows what is really happening. They do not know that a second plane has hit the other tower. But calmly and bravely, the crews do their job - they start climbing the stairs to get to the fires. Then, there is a tremendous noise, but again, they are in the dark - in two ways. They do not realise that the other tower has collapsed and the light is dimmed by the cloud of dust as they struggle to escape. The film ends on a more upbeat note. Everybody at the firehouse survives, including the two brothers, who embrace in a moment of relief. Such a film is one reason why, whether the rest of the world likes it or not - or understands it or not - Americans are not letting this whole thing go. ***************************************************************** 45 Nuclear installations not safe, says JUI ©The Frontier Publications (Pvt) Ltd. Updated on 3/12/2002 9:38:52 AM QUETTA (Online): Jamiat-e-Ulema Islami Secretary General Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haidry on Monday said that due to wrong policies of Military regime country’s nuclear and other installations were under threat.Addressing the party gathering here, he said that the United States and its allies had established permanent basis in Pakistan, as the whole nation was hijacked in the hands of these powers including nuclear installations of the country. He claimed that US government had formally started setting up its colonies in the country to achieve its ulterior motives against the Muslims. He expressed the apprehension that if military regime continued to persist with its policies it would create disaster for Pakistan in the future. He said that owning to the ongoing war in Afghanistan Pakistan had lost US$ 5 billion, however, US government had only writ off loan of only US$ 1 billion. Abdul Ghafoor observed that clash of civilisations had started in the world, as anti Muslims powers have become united against the Muslim country to suppress them under the pretext of war against terrorism. He added, “we want restoration of 1973 constitution in its real essence and Islamic system in the country.” Commenting on riots in India, he strongly condemned the massacre of Muslims by Hindu fanatics, which exposed the Indian government before the world about its claims being a secular and moderate state. He regretted that international humans rights organisations have become silent spectators over the killing of innocent civilians in India and Palestine. He urged the Islamic and other countries to put pressure on Indian government to stop the carnage in India on emergency basis. © Copyright 2001 The Frontier Post ***************************************************************** 46 Cheney calms nations on nukes -- The Washington Times March 12, 2002 By Nicholas Kralev THE WASHINGTON TIMES The Bush administration insisted yesterday it has no plans to use nuclear weapons but said it reserves the right to a "full range of options" in response to threats from other countries. Russia demanded an explanation and China said it was "deeply shocked" by reports about U.S. contingency plans to target them, along with Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya and Syria. But Vice President Richard B. Cheney sought to assure the agitated world community that Washington had no immediate plans to use its nuclear arsenal. He described the press reports over the weekend, which quoted classified nuclear posture review texts, as "a bit over the top." "Right now, today, the United States on a day-to-day basis does not target nuclear weapons on any nation," Mr. Cheney said at a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in London, at the start of a 10-day, 12-nation tour of the Europe and the Middle East. At the State Department, spokesman Richard Boucher said the nuclear review's main conclusion is that the United States will still have "enough [weapons] left to do a lot of damage," even after the cuts President Bush pledged to make in November. "The policy is one to deter threats against the United States and deter others from trying to use weapons of mass destruction," he told reporters. "We are able to reduce the operationally deployed weapons by two-thirds, but we still have to maintain a deterrent." During Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to the United States four months ago, Mr. Bush pledged to reduce the U.S. nuclear stockpile to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads from the current level of nearly 7,000 Mr. Putin responded with a similar proposal, which would bring Moscow's arsenal down to between 1,500 and 2,000 warheads, from nearly 6,000. Mr. Boucher said yesterday the recommendations in the nuclear posture review, which was ordered by Congress, addressed the role the remaining weapons would play in the United State's military capabilities. "Within that reduced level of operationally deployed forces, one does have to look at the threats that are out there and make sure that we are prepared to deal with contingencies, so that the president has a full range of options as he deals with the threats, including the developing threats of weapons of mass destruction in the world," he said. In an interview with The Washington Times last month, John Bolton, undersecretary of state for international security and arms control, said, "We would do whatever is necessary to defend America's innocent civilian population." In case of an attack on the United States, "we would have to do what is appropriate under the circumstances, and the classic formulation of that is, we are not ruling anything in and we are not ruling anything out," he said. The weekend press reports, the first of which appeared in the Los Angeles Times, provoked strong reaction overseas. "If it is true, it can only give rise to regret and concern, not only from Russia but from the entire world community," said Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov. "Such a plan can destabilize the situation and make it more tense." Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, speaking to reporters in Ireland on his way to the United States, said he expected further explanations. He said he would put his questions directly to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi said, "China, like other countries, is deeply shocked" to be a target in Washington's contingency plan. ***************************************************************** 47 Our evolving nuclear posture -- The Washington Times EDITORIAL • March 12, 2002 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's mandate was to transform the military into a force capable of defeating the post-Cold War threats America faces. Since September 11, Mr. Rumsfeld has correctly decided that he can — no, must — transform the force at the same time we fight a major war. Part of the transformation that is still in the planning stage is described in the January "Nuclear Posture Review." The issues concerning the production and possible use of nuclear weapons are vastly different from those we faced when NATO stood against the Warsaw Pact. Recognizing this, the NPR moves us out of the Cold War "Mutually Assured Destruction" dogma into the post-September 11 world. Mr. Rumsfeld is rethinking the unthinkable and coming up with some cold, clear ideas. The facts are what they are. The NPR points out that 12 nations have nuclear weapon programs, 28 have ballistic missiles, 13 have biological weapons and 16 have chemical weapons. The NPR also says North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya are among countries that could be involved in immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies, meaning a nuclear war, sooner rather than later. The report says that an Iraqi-Israeli conflict could escalate into a nuclear conflict. It is no surprise that most of the nations named in the NPR sponsor and harbor terrorists and have programs to produce weapons of mass destruction and missiles to carry them. To deal with these threats, the NPR proposes we develop new, cleaner tactical nuclear weapons that can root out the terrorists who dig so deep into mountain caves that our conventional weapons can't reach them. The moral bar against using nuclear weapons comes from the widespread destruction they cause, killing hundreds or thousands of civilians. If small, clean, nuclear weapons are developed that will not cause those kinds of casualties, there may be a place for them in our arsenal. The most frightening part of the NPR raises the need to develop and use nuclear weapons to respond to chemical, biological and other attacks it euphemistically calls "surprising military developments." The threat of a suitcase-sized nuclear weapon being smuggled into the United States must be among them. The Russians have them, the Chinese may have them, and if anything is certain, terrorists are seeking them actively. All of which leads us to the somewhat puzzling fact that Russia has been downgraded as a nuclear threat, reportedly at the bequest of President Bush himself. Mr. Bush obviously sets great store by his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but the fact remains that Russia is the only country in the world with a nuclear arsenal to match that of the United States. Even if Russia at this time may be an unlikely nuclear opponent, its lack of control of its weapons is a huge cause for concern. Any nation that exports nuclear terrorism, or allows it to operate from within its borders, must know that America will do whatever it takes to prevent such an attack against us. The Soviets understood the "mutual" part of "Mutually Assured Destruction." Our new adversaries must come to understand that whatever horrible damage they may inflict on us, the retaliation will be such that the "destruction" will not be "mutual" at all. ***************************************************************** 48 New Zealand minister warns USA to stick with nuclear disarmament BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Mar 12, 2002 Text of press release carried by New Zealand government web site on 12 March "Nuclear weapons must be left in the 20th century. We cannot allow them to become the weapon of choice for the 21st century," says Disarmament Minister Matt Robson. "For that reason I urge the government of the United States to reject any pressure to walk away from their commitment to nuclear disarmament." Matt Robson, the world's only minister for disarmament and arms control, was responding to media reports of a leaked US government document, Nuclear Posture Review. The report was shared with Congress in January 2002, and is said to include proposals for new types of nuclear weapons suited to new targets such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea. It appears to call for a new role for nuclear weapons. The key international treaty promoting nuclear disarmament is the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). The United States, like the other four nuclear weapon states (China, France, Russia and the UK) are signatories. In return for being allowed to keep their nuclear weapons for the moment, these states have made a commitment to work for nuclear disarmament. "If the recommendations in this leaked report were taken up by the Bush administration, it would throw the disarmament agenda internationally into disarray. "Next week, wearing my minister of aid hat, I will be attending the Financing for Development conference in Mexico. "I intend to raise the issue of expenditure on massive military programmes, including nuclear weaponry, which too often come at the expense of money spent on poverty reduction in hot-spots in the world like Afghanistan." Source: New Zealand government web site, Wellington, in English 12 Mar 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 49 EDITORIAL Nuclear specter IHT: March 11, 2002 The publication in the Los Angeles Times of a secret Pentagon report, portions of which were released to the American Congress two months ago, according to which the United States is developing new nuclear weapons for striking — if necessary — targets in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea as well as China and Russia have caused Europe, the Arab states and the rest of the world serious concern. Humanity had hoped that although it did not create a more stable world, the end of the Cold War had at least eliminated the nightmare of a nuclear war. Everyone believed that this threat had eclipsed even though the various scenarios about a nuclear clash between the USA and the other major nuclear powers, Russia and China, persisted. Unfortunately, the revelation that the Bush administration is examining, in theory at least, the prospect of deploying nuclear arms not only against non-nuclear powers such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea but also against countries which do not possess weapons of mass destruction, such as Syria and Libya, has dashed these hopes. We are faced with a radically new American military approach to the use of nuclear weapons. The development of new nuclear arms designed for potential use against the aforementioned targets marks the dawn of a new era where the possibility of some sort of nuclear warfare is much more likely, as it has been legitimized for a far lower level of conflict than that of the total war in the days of the USA-USSR confrontation. It is needless to stress that should such attitudes prevail, even after an American initiative, it would not be limited to US policy. Many countries will be ready to follow the US example. Moreover, given that we are primarily referring to countries with poor monitoring mechanisms over government decision-making, the threat of the use of nuclear munitions in local crises will be even greater. For should a crisis break out, who can guarantee that India and Pakistan will not be tempted to settle their differences using nuclear weapons, or that Russia and China will not be tempted to do the same thing with Chechnya and Taiwan respectively? These turbulent times favor the development of extreme views. Wise leaders should curb such views. Above all, the European leaders ought to do their best to reverse the course toward havoc. Copyright © 2002 the International Herald Tribune ***************************************************************** 50 Nuclear study not alarming to Seoul IHT: Yeh Young-june JoongAng Ilbo March 12, 2002 The South Korean government was not surprised by reports of a Pentagon review designating North Korea as one of seven possible nuclear targets, but it believes that the U.S. Defense Department's report will have serious repercussions on the relationship between Washington and Pyeongyang. "We have never been officially notified of the report's contents," said a senior official of South Korea's Foreign Affairs Ministry. "Nor have we discussed the matter with Washington." Except for the news reports, Seoul has had no chance to learn details, the official said. "That is why the government cannot announce its official stance at this point," he added. The U.S. daily Los Angeles Times reported Sunday that the U.S. Defense Department's nuclear posture report called for contingency plans for nuclear warfare should North Korea attack the South. China, Russia and Iraq were among six other countries where the report envisioned nuclear scenarios, the newspaper reported. If the Bush administration officially adopts the guidelines for the U.S. nuclear weapon uses cited in the report, the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework between Pyeongyang and Washington might be an obstacle. That agreement froze the North's nuclear development programs on the condition that the United States would not initiate a preemptive nuclear strike. "Washington is formulating a new global security strategy for the post-Sept. 11 era," another high-ranking government official, who wished to remain unidentified, stated. The United States has abandoned its Cold War nuclear strategy of mutually assured destruction. The leaked Pentagon report will probably be part of a new strategy-building process, the source explained. "The steps to be taken for a U.S. defense strategy to be finalized are reviewing existing strategies, drawing up reports, formulating a strategy and reorganizing the military structure," the source noted. "The government really has to know in what step this report belongs." Copyright © 2002 the International Herald Tribune All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 51 China Demands Official and More Clear Explanation on US Nuclear Weapon Report Xinhuanet 2002-03-12 16:30:35 BEIJING, March 12 (Xinhuanet) -- China is waiting for "official" and "more clear-cut" explanation from the US side on the possible use of nuclear weapons against China and six other countries. Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi made the above remarks Tuesday afternoon at a regular press conference held by the ministry. Sun said China has noted that some US officials had made some explanations on the issue. On Monday, Sun also demanded an explanation from the US when answering a question from the press on the Los Angeles Times' recent report that the Pentagon has informed the US Congress in a secret report of its plan which includes the possible use of nuclear weapons against China and six other countries in emergency situations. China "Deeply Shocked" Over Pentagon Secret Report: FM Spokesman BEIJING, March 11 (Xinhuanet) -- The Chinese government is deeply shocked over news that the U.S. Defence Department has outlined the possible use of nuclear weapons against countries including China, Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi said here Monday. China demands an explanation from the U.S. side about the issue, Sun said when answering a question from the press on the Los Angeles Times' recent report that the Pentagon has informed the U. S. Congress in a secret report of its plan which includes the possible use of nuclear weapons against China and six other countries in emergency situations. "Like many other countries, China is deeply shocked by this report," Sun said, "the U.S. side bears the responsibility to make an explanation on this matter." China is a peace-loving country and poses no threat to any other nation, Sun said. "China has always held that nuclear weapons should be comprehensively prohibited and thoroughly destroyed," he said. "Countries with nuclear weapons should undertake unconditionally not to be the first to use them, and not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states or nuclear-weapon-free regions," he said. The spokesman noted the fact that China and the United States have in place an agreement not to target each other with nuclear weapons. "Any Cold War mentality goes against the global trend of peace and development through cooperation, and is doomed to failure," he added. Copyright © 2000 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 52 'Nuclear posture' no use against 'terror' LETTERS TO THE EDITOR [chronfeedback@sfchronicle.com] Tuesday, March 12, 2002 Editor -- I was disappointed with The Chronicle's headlining of the Bush administration's "Nuclear Posture Review" under "War on Terrorism" ("Pentagon broadens nuclear strategy," March 9). The administration's plans for a more aggressive nuclear stance reflect a longtime foreign policy goal of hawks in Washington. It is not, as suggested by the "terrorism" caption, a new policy in response to the terrorist threat. What's more, nuclear weapons are absolutely the wrong weapon to use in a war against terrorism. At the end of the Cold War, when most of us were breathing a sigh of relief that the threat of nuclear Armageddon seemed to be fading, people employed in the nation's nuclear weapons industry had to come up with new uses for nuclear weapons. Even though Congress passed a law prohibiting the development of "tactical nuclear weapons," they started to lobby in earnest for them. It is understandable that self-interested parties would want to hitch their new generation of nuclear weapons to the "war on terrorism" bandwagon, but The Chronicle should be more circumspect -- all the more so because nuclear weapons are weapons of terror. It serves President Bush's interest to pretend that this radical escalation in nuclear tensions has something to do with the "war on terrorism," but it doesn't. ANDREW PAGE Northern California political director California Peace Action Berkeley RETURN TO OUR VALUES Editor -- What kind of nation have we become when we seriously prepare to use nuclear weapons against other people again? Have we been so blinded by the atrocities of Sept. 11 that we tolerate plans by the military-industrial complex to inflict even greater destruction? What has happened to our moral and ethical principles when we spend much more on "defense" than the rest of the world combined, at the same time turning a blind eye to underlying sources of terrorism such as despair and desperation arising from poverty and hunger? The only effective war on terrorism will be waged by returning to basic American civilized values of friendship, generosity, honesty and compassion. Hopefully, enough moral and enlightened people will democratically express their opposition to this administration's war policies. ALVIN and PEARL LEONARD Berkeley ©2002 San Francisco Chronicle   Page A - 22 ***************************************************************** 53 South Korea seeks to confirm US nuclear posture report BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Mar 11, 2002 Text of report in English by South Korean news agency Yonhap Seoul, 11 March: The government on Monday [11 March] sought to confirm a reported US administration directive allowing its military to use nuclear weapons against North Korea and six other countries under certain circumstances, Chongwadae [president's office] spokeswoman Park Sun-sook said. "We have begun to check via diplomatic channels whether the plan is true," Park said. Asked whether the US gave Seoul prior notice, she said both sides have ongoing working level contact. A senior government official said the government's position on the issue would be set later. "For now, we cannot talk about the plan as we did not see the whole contents." The Pentagon's "Nuclear Posture Review" was reported to the Congress in early January, the Los Angeles Times said in its Sunday edition. The US Defence Department usually reports to Congress before setting a military "doctrine" that requires a change in force structure, another government official said. "The relevant plan might have come under the process of changing Cold War-era defence postures," the official said, adding the US administration is apparently trying to cope with "emerging military threats". Source: Yonhap news agency, Seoul, in English 0553 gmt 11 Mar 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 54 Pentagon Nuclear Plan Obtuse, Unwise and Immoral - US Analyst China Demands Official and More Clear Explanation on US Nuclear Weapon Report Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Tuesday, March 12, 2002 Pentagon report revealing the US military contingency plan to use nuclear weapons against other nations is diplomatically obtuse, strategically unwise and morally unacceptable, said US analyst Jill Nelson. Pentagon report revealing the US military contingency plan to use nuclear weapons against other nations is diplomatically obtuse, strategically unwise and morally unacceptable, said US analyst Jill Nelson. It is frightening to think that as average Americans bow heads in prayer, or light a candle, observe a moment of silence, commemorate the lives lost and sense of invulnerability and innocence shattered six months ago in whatever way we deem appropriate, the president and those at the Pentagon are seriously contemplating using "small" nuclear weapons against enemy targets that are "able to withstand non-nuclear attack, said Mr Nelson. The comments came after Los Angeles Times said it had obtained a classified Pentagon report revealing the US military contingency plan to use nuclear weapons against seven countries, consisting of China, Russia, Iraq, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. He said: "I can't be the only one struck by the irony that as people across the United States peacefully observe the passage of six months since the terrorist attacks on America, Pentagon is considering a fundamental change in established policy on nuclear weapons, lowering the threshold from their use as tools of deterrence to active instruments of conventional warfare." Nelson described the Pentagon plan is an enormous and horrific shift in policy, and yet another effort to derail the global impetus for nuclear disarmament that is more crucial than ever in this New World. He argued that he tragedy of Sept. 11, the continuing war in Afghanistan, the knowledge that there are nations and political factions in the world that wish US ill, the failure to find or kill Osama bin Laden is no justification for changing the fundamental rules on nuclear arsenal. The administration's consideration of using nuclear weapons to fight its war on terror is like the kid who is beaten in a fist fight, goes home, and returns with a gun. He warned that the plan reflected an attempt to take the world back to the Cold War, but now there are no other superpowers. Yet it is also an effort to take us forward, into some unacceptable brave new world. It threatens to bring into being a world in which the United States accepts, develops, and, once it has gone that far, almost inevitably uses nuclear weaponry against enemies in caves and those with underground installations when conventional warfare is unable to do the job quickly or efficiently enough, he added. Mr Nelson finally warned that happens, the United States will have won the title of the world's No. 1 nuclear terrorist. Already US allies in Europe, the Middle East and Asia have raised their voices in protest and horror at this early report. China, being listed as one of a potential targets of US nuclear strikes, on Monday said it was "deeply shocked'' at the report and demanded an explanation. Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi reminded the United States of an agreement that the two nations would not target each other with nuclear weapons. "Like many other countries, China is deeply shocked by this report," Sun said. "Any Cold War mentality goes against the global trend of peace and development through cooperation, and is doomed to failure," Sun said. Sun said China was "a peace-loving country and poses no threat to any other nation", and demanded the US government explain itself. "The US side bears the responsibility to make an explanation on this matter," he said. He added that China has all along advocated the comprehensive ban and complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapon states should commit themselves to the unconditional no-first-use of nuclear weapons, and promise not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons on nuclear weapon-free countries and regions, said Sun. Ye Zicheng, dean of the diplomacy department at Beijing University, said the report showed the continued existence within the United States government of a "China threat" school of thought, which sees rising Chinese economic, political and military power as a menace to other countries. Russia also reacted with concern to the US report and demanded clarification. US Vice President Dick Cheney tried on Monday to ease international worry, saying the United States was not targeting its nuclear weapons as a matter of course at any particular nation, and described the media reports as "a bit over the top". Source: China Daily Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 55 Russian Official Had Dual Role in Uranium Pact [Los Angeles Times - latimes.com] March 12, 2002 [*] Security: The former nuclear chief's links raise questions about the U.S.' decision to privatize the buying of weapon-grade chemical element. [http://www.latimes.com/services/site/la-homedelivery.ssipage] By DAVID WILLMAN and ALAN C. MILLER, Times Staff Writers WASHINGTON -- Two years ago, a small Pennsylvania consulting firm was quietly hired by another American company responsible for carrying out a sensitive nuclear security agreement between the United States and Russia. As it turns out, one of the Pennsylvania firm's owners was Yevgeny O. Adamov, who then also headed the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy. At the time, Adamov's ministry was overseeing multimillion-dollar negotiations between Russia and USEC Inc., the same company that hired the Pennsylvania firm. These circumstances have raised new questions about the U.S. government's decision to hand a momentous national security function to private industry. USEC buys bomb-grade uranium stripped from Russian warheads as the exclusive agent for the U.S. government under a novel, post-Cold War agreement known as Megatons to Megawatts. The uranium is shipped to the United States, where it is resold as fuel for nuclear power plants. The urgency of removing weapon-grade uranium from circulation in Russia has been underscored since the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. President Bush and other leaders have warned that terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, are intent on obtaining nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Adamov's Involvement Unknown, Officials Say USEC executives say they did not know who owned the consulting firm, and did not learn of Adamov's involvement until he resigned his government post last year amid allegations of corruption. They said the firm was hired for legitimate consulting work to identify prospective joint ventures between USEC and the commercial arm of the Russian atomic energy ministry. No projects were launched before the contract expired. Peter R. Orszag, a Brookings Institution economist and critic of privatizing the nuclear security agreement, said the consulting deal involving the Pennsylvania firm reflects badly on USEC's management. "I find it inconceivable that the United States government would sign a consulting contract with a firm owned by the [Russian] minister of atomic energy," Orszag said. "Most private sector entities would not undertake such a transaction." Federal law discourages companies from making private business arrangements with public officials in foreign governments. The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act makes it a crime for a U.S. business to make payments to a government official that could be construed as an inducement. A USEC spokesman said the company did not violate the law, and he noted that the contract called for the consulting firm, Omeka Ltd., to comply with all applicable Russian and U.S. laws, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Interviews and records reviewed by The Times show that USEC paid Omeka $123,880 for consulting fees and expenses incurred from Jan. 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001. At the same time--under terms specified in its contract with USEC--Omeka also received payments totaling $90,000 or more from the commercial arm of Adamov's government ministry. The contract ended around the time Adamov resigned from the Russian government in March 2001. Earlier that year, an investigative report circulated by a panel of Russia's lower house of parliament, or Duma, alleged that Adamov had mixed his private business dealings and public responsibilities. At the time, Adamov denied any wrongdoing. Company Official Tells of Blind Trust The report noted Adamov's ownership in Omeka; The Times could not confirm other allegations contained in the document. The report did not refer to Omeka's contract with USEC. Adamov declined to respond to requests for an interview for this article or to answer written questions submitted to him in Russia. An Omeka executive said he did not believe Adamov received revenue from Omeka while he was a government minister. "We more or less put it [Adamov's ownership] in a blind trust," said Mark M. Kaushansky, who co-founded Omeka in 1994 with Adamov. Now based in Bethesda, Md., USEC once was a government-owned corporation, like Amtrak, and it processed the nation's uranium for use in nuclear power plants. As such, USEC had responsibility for carrying out the Megatons to Megawatts pact with Russia. The 1993 agreement calls for 500 metric tons of weapon-grade uranium to be stripped from the Russian warheads, blended to a lower level of radioactivity and sold to the U.S. When the federal government sold USEC to investors for $1.9 billion in 1998, the privatized entity retained responsibility for the national security agreement between the U.S. and Russia. The agreement calls for the publicly traded company to purchase a certain amount of uranium each year from the Russians. But it is up to USEC to negotiate the price for the uranium, which it resells to utilities in the U.S. Analysts estimate that the Russians, over a 20-year period ending in 2013, would be paid approximately $12 billion for the uranium under the Megatons to Megawatts accord. The exact price, however, has been subject to recurrent negotiations between the Russians and USEC. Indeed, the financial terms have been contested intensely; even a slight shift in price can be worth huge sums to the Russian government or USEC. Both sides now are trying to reach an agreement for new pricing terms, through 2013. The negotiations got underway in early 2000--about the same time that USEC retained Omeka. The discussions that led to the consulting contract between USEC and Omeka began in late 1999. In a series of interviews for this article, USEC executives and a representative of Adamov's company said the dealings had no connection with the negotiations regarding the national security agreement between the U.S. and Russian governments. A USEC senior vice president, Philip G. Sewell, said Omeka was retained to provide "a speculative assessment" of opportunities with the commercial arm of the Russian atomic energy ministry, known as Tenex. The contract specified that services were to be performed by "no one other than" Kaushansky, a Pittsburgh-based representative of Omeka who is Adamov's business partner and whose title is general manager. Noting that Omeka is privately held, Kaushansky declined to quantify Adamov's ownership, other than to say, "Yes, he had an equity stake in the company. . . . He is one of the owners." USEC executives said they hired Omeka to gain the consulting services of Kaushansky, a nuclear engineer and Russian immigrant who speaks English and Russian fluently. Until the report of the Duma's Anti-Corruption Committee began circulating, they said they had no idea of Adamov's involvement with Omeka. No Attempt to Identify Ownership of Firm Charles B. Yulish, a USEC spokesman and vice president, acknowledged that the company did not attempt to identify the ownership of Omeka before hiring the firm. Yulish said this was consistent with standard practices at USEC. Upon learning of Adamov's involvement with Omeka, the USEC executives said they had an in-house auditor review the contract and Kaushansky's performance. The audit, they said, upheld the propriety of the arrangements. "There's nothing on its face or there's nothing behind the face that warrants looking at it askance, in terms of whether monies were paid for favors or for work that wasn't performed," Yulish said. The hiring of Omeka was handled by Sewell, who was and remains USEC's chief negotiator with Adamov's former ministry on the national security agreement. Sewell said officials from Tenex were the first to recommend Kaushansky's services, and that he relied on their word that Omeka was a bona fide entity. Kaushansky told The Times that Tenex hired Omeka at some point before the company's contract with USEC. Sewell said he was surprised when he learned, through the Duma report that began circulating in early 2001, about Adamov's ownership stake in Omeka. Should Kaushansky have disclosed Adamov's role to USEC? "I wish he had," Sewell said. Company spokesman Yulish said USEC would not comment regarding whether it would have hired Omeka if the executives had known of Adamov's role. Yet Adamov's involvement with Omeka was less than a secret: On March 26, 1999, Energy Daily, a well-known industry publication in the U.S., reported that Adamov, his wife and Kaushansky had founded Omeka in the Pittsburgh suburb of Monroeville. In April 1999, this report was cited in the Moscow Times, an English-language daily. Yulish said that USEC subscribed to Energy Daily. But he said the article, headlined "Russian Atomic Minister is Card-Carrying U.S. Capitalist," was not included in the daily summary of news clippings that USEC distributed among its employees. Yulish, Sewell and USEC's general counsel, Robert J. Moore, said the national security agreement between the U.S. and Russia encourages USEC to pursue joint ventures with the Russians. Kaushansky, while acknowledging Adamov's ownership in Omeka, said his partner ceased any operational role upon becoming atomic energy minister in 1998. "He had no control over it," said Kaushansky, who spoke with The Times by phone and at an office building in downtown Pittsburgh. Kaushansky said that he doubted that Adamov had been aware of Omeka's contract with USEC. Official Was in Position to Influence Talks This much is not in dispute: Adamov and his subordinates were positioned to influence the outcome of the Russians' negotiations with USEC regarding the Megatons to Megawatts accord. And in May 2000--less than five months after hiring Adamov's firm--representatives of USEC say the Russians tentatively agreed to new financial terms that were advantageous to USEC. However, the terms were not ratified by both governments before Adamov left his ministry post. They remain unresolved to this day, although USEC and Tenex recently submitted new pricing terms to both governments. The new terms are also considered beneficial to USEC. Times staff writer Carol J. Williams in Moscow and researcher Janet Lundblad in Los Angeles contributed to this report. Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times By visiting this site, you are ***************************************************************** 56 U.S. and Uzbekistan Cooperate on Nonproliferation Agreement Protects Nuclear Materials and Technologies energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: March 12, 2002 WASHINGTON, D.C. - Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham signed an Implementing Agreement today with the Uzbek Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abdulaziz Kamilov, to facilitate cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation between the United States and Uzbekistan. Secretary of State Colin Powell presided over the ceremony with Uzbek President Islam Karimov. "This project is an excellent opportunity for the United States and Uzbekistan to work together to reduce the threat of terrorism and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction," Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham said. "It reinforces President Bush's commitment to work with our partners in the region and take practical steps to improve the physical protection and accounting of nuclear materials and prevent illicit nuclear trafficking. This, in combination with our other nonproliferation initiatives, will improve the security environment in a way that has both regional and international benefits." The Implementing Agreement provides the groundwork for the execution of a June 2001 agreement to perform joint work on nuclear nonproliferation. As a result of the agreements, the United States will begin work to repatriate to Russia highly enriched uranium fuel from a research reactor in Uzbekistan. The Uzbekistan government in turn has pledged to convert the reactor to use low-enriched uranium, the more proliferation-resistant form of reactor fuel. The Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration will assist this conversion and aid Uzbekistan in the safe and secure storage of its nuclear materials. This project furthers U.S. nonproliferation goals by increasing the security of nuclear materials in Central Asia and advancing the long-term U.S. goal of reducing the commercial use of highly enriched uranium fuel. Media Contact: Jeanne Lopatto, DOE, 202/586-4940 Lisa Cutler, NNSA, 202/586-7371 Release No. PR-02-040 ***************************************************************** 57 The secret bomb squad - CNN.com - [cover image] By Douglas Waller/Washington When the Bush administration was warned after Sept. 11 that Osama bin Laden might have some type of nuclear device, it knew where to turn for help: the Nuclear Emergency Support Team, a secretive unit within the Department of Energy. Last January the Administration quietly ordered NEST to launch periodic searches for a "dirty bomb" in Washington and other large U.S. cities. Administration officials tell TIME that the NEST teams aren't dispatched to urban areas because of any specific threat received. Instead, almost every week the FBI randomly selects several cities for visits by NEST, which comprises some 300 scientists and technicians from Energy and nuclear-weapons laboratories trained in finding and dismantling terrorist nuclear devices. A team of six or fewer NEST scientists covertly prowls areas, such as docks in a coastal town, that local authorities consider likeliest to have hidden contraband. Some NEST agents drive in unmarked vans packed with sophisticated gamma and neutron detectors that sniff for radiation emissions. Others travel on foot with the detectors concealed in briefcases, backpacks or even beer coolers. NEST was in Salt Lake last month deploying its equipment at the Olympics. Explosive-ordnance-disposal experts with the Joint Special Operations Command are on call to fly in and assist the scientists in taking apart anything they find, but so far, NEST has turned up nothing in the searches. Administration officials admit that, just like putting sky marshals on airliners to foil potential hijackers, sending the NEST teams out is a shot in the dark. "But it's better than having them sitting at home doing nothing," says one. Cover Date: March 18, 2001 © 2002 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. ***************************************************************** 58 Powell defends nuclear planning -- The Washington Times March 11, 2002 From combined dispatches Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday a classified Pentagon report reviewing U.S. options for the use of nuclear weapons was simply "sound, military, conceptual planning" and not a precursor to any imminent U.S. action. Mr. Powell discussed the secret document on the CBS "Face the Nation" program after the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday that the Defense Department study outlined a contingency plan to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries — China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. The New York Times reported yesterday that the Nuclear Posture Review provided to Congress Jan. 8 also called for developing new nuclear weapons that would be better suited for striking targets in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Libya. Mr. Powell confirmed that the study had virtually eliminated Russia as a nuclear nemesis, reflecting the post-Cold War environment, and was focused now on the new threat facing the United States — rogue states developing weapons of mass destruction. "All that study said ... is that this class of nations — Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea — are developing the kinds of weapons of mass destruction that should be troubling to all of us." Mr. Powell added, however, that "we should not get all carried away with some sense that the United States is planning to use nuclear weapons in some contingency that is coming up in the near future. It is not the case." "What the Pentagon has done with this study is sound, military, conceptual planning, and the president will take that planning and he will give his directions on how to proceed," he said. President Bush's national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, also downplayed the significance of the reports. "No one should be surprised that the United States worries a great deal about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," Miss Rice told NBC's "Meet the Press." "The only way to deter such a use is to be clear that it would be met with a devastating response. That is the basis of this report." The Los Angeles Times, in first outlining the official list of potential target countries, said the three contingencies listed for possible use of the weapons were "against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons," or "in the event of surprising military developments." "The report says the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan, or in an attack from North Korea on the south. They might also become necessary in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbor," the Times said. Mr. Powell denied the administration was recommending development of "new nuclear weapons" or further testing. "We are not," he said. "What we are looking at, and what we have asked the Pentagon to do, is to see whether or not ... we might want to modify or update or change some of the weapons in our inventory to make them more effective." Reactions from some of the targeted nations ranged from silence or unconcern by governments to defiance by unofficial commentators. Libya's African affairs minister, Ali Abd al-Salam al-Turki, told reporters in Cairo he found the report hard to believe. "I don't think this is true," he said. "I don't think America is going to destroy the world." ***************************************************************** 59 Livermore lab director offers priority 'A-list' Tri-Valley Herald Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 3:09:13 AM MST By Glenn Roberts Jr. STAFF WRITER Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - -->LIVERMORE -- The director at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory has unveiled a top-10 list of goals for the year, which include meeting milestones for a stadium-sized laser project and building a strong counterterrorism program. Lab Director C. Bruce Tarter said in a Friday announcement to employees that he first developed this concept for an annual "A-List" when he was hired as director about seven years ago. "The purpose was to identify 10 objectives for each year that would define the most important institutional goals for me and the other senior managers," Tarter said. Tarter said each of the items must meet several criteria before it is included in the list: it must be important for a "significant fraction" of the lab, achieve several milestones within the year, require his personal guidance and require "buy-in" from other senior managers. "If the laboratory achieves the majority of items on the list, we are essentially guaranteed a successful year," he said. "Failure to meet some of the central tenets will almost certainly mean significant problems in one or more areas." The first item on the list states that lab researchers must work to realize the objectives of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which seeks to ensure the reliability of nuclear weapons through experiments and simulations. The second item on the list states that the lab must "meet all project and program milestones for NIF," the lab's National Ignition Facility laser project which has been under construction since 1997. Tarter said that the NIF goal "is obvious -- we simply have to meet both the program and project (milestones) from now until NIF is fully operating to restore the lab's reputation in taking on major projects and to ensure a long, productive life for the facility." NIF has already weathered several technical and management problems, which led to a cost increase of more than $1 billion and a schedule slippage of about six years. Third on the list is building a stronger counterterrorism program at the lab. "We have done outstanding work since the tragic events of Sept. 11," Tarter said, "but the organization of future efforts and our role in them will largely be established by the end of this year. This is already a major priority for the country and for us." Other A-List goals include: Award the contract for a new, faster supercomputer that will replace the lab's ASCI White. Used for nuclear weapons research, ASCI is the world's most powerful supercomputer. Implement recommendations from an employee survey conducted last year at the lab. The survey sought employees' input on workplace issues. Ensure safety and security at the lab and pass all operational reviews. Develop new strategies for initiatives in non-nuclear defense, energy, environment and the physical sciences and biosciences. Engage in a strategic planning effort with the new director that sets directions and commits the lab to a common set of goals. Tarter announced Dec. 7 that he will resign from his position once a new director is hired. The search process is under way. Meet University of California system goals for enhancing efficiency in operations and program integration. UC manages the lab for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration. Use the lab's 50th anniversary this year as "an opportunity to reflect on our history and gain a renewed sense of commitment" to lab missions. ©1999-2001 by MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 60 Closure of old nuclear plant slowed By KATIE HUMAN One year ago, there was a plan for nuclear material stored at the Rocky Flats facility - and a destination for nearly every pound of radioactive waste that would be generated during cleanup of the former nuclear weapons factory. Tools and clothing tainted with plutonium would go to a nuclear waste dump in New Mexico. Dangerously pure plutonium and uranium would go to South Carolina. It seemed possible the "Superfund" site could close by the Department of Energy's 2006 deadline, the most ambitious ever set for a radioactive cleanup project. But a political decision last summer left several tons of dangerous Cold War leftovers stranded at Rocky Flats. A lawsuit and the lack of other key decisions from Washington have made managers at the site nervous about meeting their cleanup deadline - and losing public confidence and support. "We need to move the special nuclear material out," said Barbara Mazurowski, the Department of Energy manager in charge of cleaning up and shutting down Rocky Flats. "We should have started in October." Mazurowski and her colleagues at Rocky Flats continue to say they're optimistic that shipping paths for Flats waste and nuclear material will reopen within a month or two, which would make the site more likely to make the 2006 deadline. But many community leaders and activists say they are concerned. Some worry that in a desperate rush to meet its deadline, the Department of Energy will put its workers in danger or will leave behind an unsafe amount of contamination at the site. Others say that if the site can't meet its goals, cleanup will founder and it will be decades before Rocky Flats ever becomes a wildlife refuge, as planned. U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo, said he worries that if Rocky Flats doesn't meet its own ambitious cleanup goals, Congress will cut funding to the cleanup. "We're coming up to some very significant fiscal crossroads, the retiring of the baby boom population, other needs," he said. "I could foresee a situation where the cleanup and closure is far enough down the list that it's set aside." The General Accounting Office, a congressional unit that audits federal programs, last year reported that Rocky Flats had just a 15 percent chance of closing by 2006, because of the cleanup project's complexity. Part of the problem is that no one wants to accept the site's most dangerous nuclear material. Several tons of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium are tucked into a secure vault at Rocky Flats, requiring security expenses of $3.5 million to $4 million a month, said John Corsi, spokesman for Kaiser-Hill, the company contracted to clean up Rocky Flats. Moving that material out is the critical step to shutting down Rocky Flats on time, he said. Once trucks carry the weapons material off site - a 12-month project - the security savings can be spent on cleanup, and workers can begin decontaminating the building that houses the vaults. "That's really when the project's going to get rolling," Corsi said. Trucks bearing the dangerous metals were supposed to begin leaving Rocky Flats last fall, destined for the federal Savannah River Site in South Carolina. But when the Bush administration cut funding for two plutonium-processing plants in the state last summer, Gov. Jim Hodges balked. Hodges promised to lie down in the road before letting trucks carrying such dangerous material into his state without a plan for getting rid of it. So Rocky Flats' nuclear material has stayed put, five months longer than expected, so far. Hodges and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham met earlier this month to discuss the impasse, and spokespeople for both say negotiations are making progress. Abraham promised to build a $3.8 billion plutonium-processing plant, for example, that could transform weapons-grade material into fuel for power plants. Before shipping plutonium to South Carolina for processing, however, the Energy Department in Washington must send South Carolina a 30-day notice. It has not been sent, and Joe Davis, spokesman for the Energy Department headquarters, declined to say when it might be. And the current plan would still leave at Rocky Flats more than a ton of leftover material, too impure to be transformed into fuel, too dangerous to be disposed of as waste. Other events, too, are putting pressure on the site. Since Sept. 11, for example, Rocky Flats has spent about $5 million extra on security and will spend almost $9 million by October. So far, site managers say they've absorbed the cost by making cleanup more efficient, but that can't continue for more than a few more months. And then came a lawsuit. Last month, a California group sued the federal government for "illegally" exempting itself from environmental laws and planning to use unsafe containers to ship some plutonium from Rocky Flats to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The suit asks the federal agency to perform environmental analysis before shipping its plutoniu (Contact Katy Human of the Daily Camera in Boulder, Co., at http://www.bouldernews.com.) March 11, 2002 Copyright © 2002 The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights ***************************************************************** 61 STRICKLAND CONDEMNS DOE DECISION TO IGNORE LAW REGARDING URANIUM CONVERSION FACILITIES March 4, 2002 WASHINGTON – Congressman Ted Strickland today condemned the Department of Energy (DOE) for further delaying the construction of two depleted uranium hexaflouride (DUF6) plants in the U.S., and opening up the door to building only one facility. "Finally, after months of bureaucratic hand-wringing and vacillation, Members of Congress from both Ohio and Kentucky were left with the clear impression that DOE would finally move forward with a plan to construct two conversion plants," said Strickland. "Now, it appears they are letting their plans be quashed by OMB. It’s time for the President to step in and instruct his agencies to follow the clear intent of the law." According to Public Law 105-204, the federal government must begin construction of facilities to treat and recycle DUF6 at both the Portsmouth, OH, and the Paducah, KY gaseous diffusion plants by January, 2004. DOE had requested bids from companies to construct the facilities, and appeared ready to move forward with the plan. However, internal struggles between the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and DOE have forced DOE to request that bidders adjust their proposals to include the possibility of building only one plant at either site, and simply transferring the hazardous material from the site that does not have a DUF6 facility. This change will delay the process for another year, perhaps conflicting with the mandated construction deadline, and costing bidders and taxpayers more money. "If the Administration refuses to build two plants, it will only further demonstrate its willingness to ignore not only Congressional intent, but the concrete promises they made to the workforce at the Piketon plant," added Strickland. "This is just another example of how workers in southern Ohio are suffering from the broken promises made by this Administration." ***************************************************************** 62 Modernization of Y-12 OK'd Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 11:23 a.m. on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 Modernization of Y-12 OK'd by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has greenlighted the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex. The Department of Energy chief issued Monday a "record of decision" that authorizes the construction of the following two facilities at the aging Oak Ridge weapons plant: + Highly enriched uranium facility -- It will serve as a storage area for assembled weapons secondaries and other forms of highly enriched uranium. The preferred site for this facility would be in the West Portal parking lot, just north of Portal 16. + Special materials complex -- It will be used for the production of unspecified "special materials." Ongoing studies involving the mission of this facility and project configuration and design needs must be completed before a decision on a location can be made, officials said. The record of decision is DOE's formal response to an environmental impact statement on the modernization. That document evaluated the environmental impacts associated with continued operations at Y-12, as well as the construction and operation of new facilities. Y-12 is responsible for the refurbishment of nuclear weapons components, the storage and protection of special nuclear materials, surveillance of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and the dismantlement of nuclear weapons components. BWXT Y-12 -- an alliance between Bechtel National Inc. and BWX Technologies Inc. -- was awarded a five-year, $2.5 billion contract Aug. 31, 2000, to manage and operate Y-12. Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or pparson@oakridger.com [pparson@oakridger.com] . All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 63 Researchers' task to confirm 'bubble fusion' Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 11:23 a.m. on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff It's the nature of science, says Dan Shapira; researchers try to confirm things. Given the recent media frenzy over "bubble fusion," that's never been more true. This controversial research effort suggested possible evidence of nuclear fusion in a tabletop experiment that involved the collapse of bubbles in a beaker filled with deuterated acetone (acetone with its normal hydrogen atoms replaced by deuterium, a heavy hydrogen isotope that can undergo fusion reactions). Normal acetone is a colorless, volatile liquid often used as a paint remover or chemical solvent. Rusi Taleyarkhan, a senior scientist in Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Engineering Science and Technology Division, and Richard Lahey Jr., a professor of engineering at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., are leading the collaborative research effort that also includes the Russian Academy of Sciences. The work was sponsored through the Department of Defense. Shapira and Michael Saltmarsh, both nuclear physicists at ORNL, attempted to replicate Taleyarkhan's work. They were asked by lab managers to do so last year after Taleyarkhan reported his findings. "We hoped to confirm it," Shapira said. "But you always have to think 'what if we don't?'" Armed with their own sophisticated neutron detector, Shapira and Saltmarsh conducted their work in Taleyarkhan's lab at the Y-12 National Security Complex. "To say that there are no neutrons coming from this would be wrong," Shapira said. "There were some d-d (deuterium-deuterium) reactions." However, Shapira and Saltmarsh argued the neutron emission they detected was too small to support evidence of nuclear fusion reported by Taleyarkhan. "We just couldn't reproduce their results," Shapira said. "This is not to say there is nothing there or there is something there. "There are many physicists in many institutions trying to confirm it -- not in order to punch holes in it. It's always been the way of science, you have to confirm it." Despite Shapira and Saltmarsh's findings, Science magazine, a leading scientific journal, published a paper on the experiment by Taleyarkhan and his colleagues in addition to several other articles. The story was also reported by the media nationwide and overseas. Shapira is now working on getting the results of his experiment made public. "We view our results as an independent experiment," Shapira said. "I don't know if Science (magazine) will take it. Somewhere it will be published. That I can tell you for sure." "Bubble fusion" has drawn comparisons to the notorious scientific experiment known as "cold fusion." That late 1980s project involved two University of Utah researchers -- Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann -- prematurely announcing that they had achieved a fusion reaction at room temperature through chemical means. Other researchers failed to reproduce the work. "That's what we were afraid of," Shapira said. "That's why we did our experiment." And, unlike the "cold fusion" debacle, Taleyarkhan's research was peer reviewed before it was made public. Shapira added that he thinks ORNL researchers will do a repeat experiment of Taleyarkhan's research. In the meantime, Taleyarkhan maintains his research appears to possess near- and far-term potential. "The measurements made indicate the production of close to a million neutrons per second, and tritium making it a respectable tabletop neutron or tritium source that may be now turned on and off at will," he said. According to Taleyarkhan, such a source could be utilized for several applications including medical applications and irradiation of equipment and biological items. "The same process that produces neutrons does so via generation of what we believe are intense pressures (hundreds of thousands of atmospheres) and million-degree temperatures -- aspects that may then be possible to employ for materials synthesis and chemical kinetics enhancement," he said. "We hasten to add that this method of inducing d-d (deuterium-deuterium) fusion has not reached a stage where we generate net energy," Taleyarkhan said. "When and if this will happen is not known -- and I will not, for one, speculate on the time frame -- no promises. However, if indeed possible to scale up, this would offer the world an alternate means for using simple mechanical energy to produce potentially limitless energy from fusion reactions, with revolutionary applications." Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or [pparson@oakridger.com] . All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 64 Man arrested after going through Y-12 checkpoint Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 11:24 a.m. on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 by Beverly Majors Oak Ridger staff Oak Ridge police arrested a Murfreesboro man for drunken driving Saturday after he drove his Ford Explorer past a security gate at the Y-12 National Security Complex. Police reports said Jeffrey Steven Burrow, 24, 1606 N. Tennessee Blvd., Murfreesboro, was arrested about 4 a.m. when officers and security guards found him passed out the in the back seat of his Explorer. Because of recent terrorist incidents, police and plant security guards took safety precautions in apprehending Burrow. Reports said the incident started in the West Knoxville area when an Oliver Springs couple returning home saw Burrow's Explorer "going all over the road." The couple told police that Burrow's Explorer was weaving on Oak Ridge Highway in the Solway community and nearly hitting other cars, light poles, mailboxes and street signs. They followed him to Bethel Valley Road where he drove on the wrong side of the road and then onto Scarboro Road. Reports said the Explorer then turned left onto Bear Creek Road and stopped when James Watts Jr., a security guard, waved him down. The Oliver Springs couple, still behind the Explorer, got out and told the guard to call the police. At that point, Burrow accelerated and drove through the checkpoint. Police officers arrived to find the Explorer parked in the Central Portal parking lot but saw no one in the vehicle. After a short time, officers put on protective gear and walked over to the vehicle. Reports said the windows on the Explorer were dark and that they could make out only one person inside. Burrow was lying on the back seat and police were unable to wake him. Officers broke a window, unlocked the door and physically took Burrow out of the Explorer. After determining that Burrow was no security risk, police charged him with driving under the influence, criminal trespassing, driving on a revoked license (second offense) and violation of the implied consent law. Burrow refused medical treatment and a blood alcohol test. His vehicle was seized and he was taken to the Anderson County jail. Burrow was released from jail about 9:30 p.m. after posting a $5,000 bond. Beverly Majors can be contacted at (865) 220-5514 or bmajors@oakridger.com [bmajors@oakridger.com] . All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 65 DOE to reveal part of data in Paducah ruling The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Tuesday, March 12, 2002 About 2,000 pages on shipments to the Paducah plant are to be made public by September, with the rest to come later. By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650 The U.S. Department of Energy apparently intends to make declassification rulings by September on about one-third of 6,000 pages of overdue information about Cold War-era shipments of dismantled nuclear weapons to the Paducah uranium enrichment plant. That is in response to a federal judge's order Feb. 5 that DOE submit a schedule for making the information public. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert in Benton, Ill., said a backlog of hundreds of Freedom of Information requests was no excuse for DOE not responding to two September 1999 requests by Mark Donham and Kristi Hanson of Brookport, Ill., leaders of the Regional Association of Concerned Environmentalists. Donham said DOE sent him a preliminary compliance schedule. DOE intends to set up a special area of its Freedom of Information Office in Oak Ridge, Tenn., to immediately start declassifying the material, Donham said. "It said they expect a determination on the first 2,000 documents by September, and the two other installments of 2,000 pages would be done in a couple of months' increments." Gilbert said the FOI backlog was not an "exceptional circumstance" qualifying for the requested indefinite delay. Although DOE should have already provided the information, a September partial compliance date is better than an "open-ended" schedule, Donham said. The request involves records of dismantled nuclear weapons shipments made during the Cold War between Paducah and the Pantex facility in Amarillo, Texas, for the recovery of precious metals, and burial. Gilbert had given DOE until Monday to respond to a request by Donham and Hanson for documents relating to the once-proposed Vortec radioactive waste incinerator project at the plant. Donham said he had received "three or four reams" of paper from DOE regarding Vortec, including documents showing DOE intended to seek a state air permit. "I think we're basically talking about a project that isn't going to happen, at least in the form it was planned," Donham said. The environmentalist group filed suit Feb. 16, 2001, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. DOE responded that it had a backlog of more than 600 FOI requests, handled on a first-come, first-served basis. According to Gilbert’s ruling, DOE said last April 25 that it would take four to six months to respond to the Vortec request, and as long as 18 months for the weapons information to reach final declassification review. ***************************************************************** 66 The Bill Madia Show See it and believe in ORNL's -- and Oak Ridge's -- exciting future Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 11:16 a.m. on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 Dick Smyser: After weeks of too often rancorous debate about the proposed Oak Ridge Mall redevelopment, gloomy forecasts on municipal finances and grumping about the city's tax rate, Bill Madia's "2nd Annual Report to the Community on the Progress and Future of Oak Ridge National Laboratory" was a tonic. Even allowing for self-promotion for the lab's still quite new operating contractor, UT-Battelle, it was an exciting scene Madia described -- hundreds of millions of dollars in new and improved facilities, clearly defined national missions, fine-tuning of staff and firm commitments to the community of Oak Ridge, most exciting of all to Oak Ridge High School. UT-Battelle, Madia said, wants ORHS to become "the best science high school in the country" and, yes, UT-Battelle is prepared to invest money to achieve that goal. He's already conferred with Ken Green, ORHS principal, Madia said in conversations after his presentation Thursday night at the American Museum of Science and Energy. * His enthusiastic description of things now happening and that will continue to happen down behind the ridge in Bethel Valley was the first in this year's Community Lecture Series sponsored by Friends of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It was a well-organized presentation and it's unfortunate that the audience, about 100, wasn't larger and didn't include some of our town's current more vocal naysayers. Colorful, precisely orchestrated view-graphs told of: + The $1.4 billion Spallation Neutron Source, on schedule and within budget. Oak Ridge has a history of projects proposed and even started but yet "not making it into the end zone," Madia said, but the SNS is going to score. + Construction on the new "Mouse House," more respectfully known as the William L. and Liane B. Russell Laboratory for Comparative and Functional Genomics, to begin this summer. + The upgrading, restarting and operating at full power of the High Flux Isotopes Reactor. + The design stage for the $65 million Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences to be located adjacent to the SNS atop the ridge overlooking the new improved and consolidated ORNL facilities in Bethel Valley below. + ORNL's Quasi-Poloidal Stellarator experiment, cost estimated at $14 million and construction in Melton Valley to begin next year -- the "first fusion experimental device at ORNL in ten years" and significant also in its location in the primary ORNL area rather than at Y-12 where earlier ORNL fusion devices have been located. * One of Madia's many view-graphs. At one point Madia stopped and did a quick calculation. Given the length of his talk and the sums already appropriated for the sweeping improvements and new facilities, he was speaking at a rate of multiple millions per minute. When it's all done, ORNL will be a much better-looking complex, and there's the irony. For while the lab will be much more outwardly attractive, for the present at least it will be much less accessible to the public, and all because of the threat of terrorism. "The events of September 11 have impacted everything we do," read one of Madia's view-graphs early in his presentation. Instead of the much more visitor-friendly place ORNL was planning to be before those hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, ORNL has now had to hunker down, restrict traffic on Bethel Valley Road and be much more security-conscious. Given the short response time should a threatening truck or other vehicle be detected headed toward ORNL from Interstate 40 or I-75, there was no alternative but to establish the new security checkpoints, Madia said. For now, not just its own security but the whole nation's security, and energy security especially, is one of ORNL's important missions, he said. Nuclear power plant security has always been an ORNL concern, but now it is getting even greater attention. One of the view-graphs highlighted "resurgent nuclear power" and Madia told of ORNL's partnering with industry to build an advanced nuclear power reactor. * The new facilities and programs the lab director described portend significant additions to "the language of ORNL." Besides "nanoscience," also among the exotic new terminology he dropped were "quasi-poloidal stellarator" (the fusion device), "subangstrom resolution" (for microscopes), and "teraflops" and "petaflops" (computer talk). However, there was household-related terminology too. ORNL continues to work on improving the efficiency of water heaters and fuel pumps and toward developing systems that drastically reduce power lost during transmission. * New and improved facilities and the abandonment of outdated, inefficient and poorly located facilities will mean major savings, Madia said. Also, staff has been reorganized: one associate director added, divisions reduced from 19 to 16, section heads cut by 62 and now 179 group leaders where before there were 251. Significant also: private funds for parts of the lab's renewal including $71 million already committed for a Computational Sciences Building, an Energy Technology Facility and a Research Office Building. The state of Tennessee is also committed for $9 million to build the Joint Institute for Computational Sciences and the Oak Ridge Center for Advanced Studies, with another $26 million anticipated for a Joint Institute for Biological Sciences and a Joint Institute for Neutron Sciences. * Currently the big visual evidence of ORNL's transformation is the leveled-over former parking area east of the main ORNL administration building (4500), this to make way for the six new facilities to be constructed there. Madia showed a picture taken that very morning. Again, it was regrettable that the audience for his optimistic presentation was not larger. Regrettable also that, because of new security measures, Oak Ridgers can't drive by the ORNL area and see for themselves. In lieu of all this, City Council would do well to invite the lab director to repeat his performance -- so rich in information-enhancing confidence in Oak Ridge's future -- at one of its meetings. -- RDS Richard D. Smyser is founding editor of The Oak Ridger. He can be reached by e-mail at rdsandmps@aol.com [rdsandmps@aol.com] . All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 67 Brilliant scientist at the heart of the development of Britain's atomic bomb Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | John Challens [Guardian Unlimited] John Challens Pearce Wright Tuesday March 12, 2002 [http://www.guardian.co.uk] John Challens, who has died aged 86, was one of the two scientists who made the final checks on Britain's first atomic bomb, at the Monte Bello islands off the north-west coast of Australia in October 1952. He set its arming switch minutes before it was detonated by electronic firing circuits he had invented. Challens was among a generation of brilliant scientists who worked secretly at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment (AWRE), at Aldermaston, created after the Labour government decided in January 1947 to develop a British nuclear deterrent. The decision was taken when the United States severed all technical collaboration in the atomic field. Although it was British scientists who did the decisive work in 1941 that persuaded the Americans of the feasibility of the bomb, Britain was accepted only as a junior partner in the US venture - and then only because it had some exceptional atomic scientists. When the Anglo-American relationship collapsed, access was cut to nuclear weapons material, like plutonium, and to the knowledge needed to produce the relevant materials and turn them into an atomic bomb. The story of how Britain was able to detonate its own bomb, and announce its membership of the nuclear weapons club in October 1952 - alongside the US and the Soviet Union - is a remarkable blend of political machination and technical genius. Its development depended on organising inter-disciplinary teams of scientists and engineers, from a vast range of backgrounds, to work on unfamiliar concepts, processes and materials. Challens' genius, as an inventor in electronics and instrumentation, was one illustration of the components that had to interlock. Born in Peterborough, the son of a successful engineer, Challens was educated at Deacon's school and University College, Nottingham, before being recruited by the War Office in the 1930s to work on the physics of heavy guns at what became the armaments research department at Woolwich, south London. In 1939, he switched to missile guidance systems at the rocket development establishment at Aberporth, west Wales. When Germany surrendered, he joined the team sent to investigate the V1 and V2 programmes. His knowledge of guided missiles took him in 1946 to the US, where he served in the British scientific mission for a year. On his return to Britain, he found himself at the centre of a fierce tug-of-war between those in charge of the atomic weapons project and the guided missiles programme. He was approached to join the atomic project by William Penney, who had just returned from secondment to the Manhattan Project in the US and work on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Penney had been briefed to make and test an atomic bomb, while John Cockcroft directed teams of scientists at Harwell in the complex web of fundamental research in physics, mathematics, chemistry and metallurgy needed to underpin the project. The engineer Christopher Hinton had been charged with the design, construction and operation of the plants to produce nuclear weapons material at Windscale, Risley and Capenhurst. Challens became a central figure in nuclear weapons development for 30 years, but he was only allowed to transfer from missiles after Penney appealed at the highest government level. Challens played a vital part in the success of Hurricane, that first British test, where the plutonium-fuelled weapon was a similar, but more efficient, version of the Nagasaki bomb. It consisted of a football-sized, hollow sphere of plutonium, surrounded by a conventional high explosive designed to detonate simultaneously at 32 points around its surface to crush the plutonium into a critical mass to create a nuclear chain reaction; a small amount of polonium was added to give an intense, additional burst of neutrons, and so act as an initiator. Challens' team had to create the electronic firing circuits that simultaneously triggered the detonators. It was a specification that pushed electronic control systems way beyond their existing frontiers. Trials at the Shoeburyness firing range were completed only just in time for the Monte Bello test bomb, which was installed on the frigate HMS Plym. Challens and a junior colleague, Eddie Howse, were the last to touch the weapon. Penney gave considerable credit for the success of the project to Challens' team, and it ensured his rapid promotion. He was party to most of the British nuclear tests in Australia through the 1950s, and invented an electronic initiator to replace polonium and stimulate the chain reaction in the earliest weapons. He was scientific director at the British H-bomb tests at Christmas Island in 1957, and attended the first meeting between American and British weapons builders after the US re-established nuclear cooperation. From 1959, he was head of development at AWRE, producing new warheads for the RAF and the navy's Polaris submarine missile programme. He became assistant director of AWRE in 1965, and deputy director in 1972, when a new Soviet defence system left the credibility of the British deterrent in doubt. Challens' last big challenge was to respond to that threat by the development of Chevaline, which modified the Polaris system so that it could still penetrate Soviet defences. It was his major task in his role as director, from 1976 until retirement in 1978. He was widowed in 1971, with two sons. He remarried in 1973, and, on retirement, he and his wife Norma shared a passion for golf. · Wallace John Challens, atomic scientist, born May 15 1915; died March 1 2002 [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 68 Fission-powered rockets could help open up the solar system’s vast energy reserves. By Homer Hickam March 8, 2002 Americans love rockets, and their interest focuses on the two ends: the front end where the astronauts sit and the tail end where the rocket engines are bolted. For decades, NASA has kept the focus on the front end through an unrelenting public relations campaign touting the astronauts' importance. While this is understandable, it has unfortunately resulted in a skewed program where the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station—both based on old technology—get most of NASA's budget. It's time to seriously work on the tail end again and build advanced propulsion systems. If we don't, space endeavors will be stuck forever in low-Earth orbit, doing no better than struggling to bolt together the space station. The station is supposed to provide information needed before sending humans on long space voyages, but we already know that living in space is essentially bad for people. It is debilitating to bones and muscles, and radiation from the solar wind and cosmic rays can cause cancer. To go to Mars or back to the moon with slow, low-powered chemical rocket systems is asking for trouble. The best a chemical rocket can do is get up to speed (burning up all its propellant in the process) and then drift to its destination, like a car coasting down the highway with its engine off. What's needed are space drives that will provide a constant velocity. Spaceflight should evolve in much the same way as the exploration of Antarctica. The first expeditions to the South Pole in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were essentially sprints and publicity stunts, carried out primarily for national prestige and personal glory, though often wrapped in the dubious veneer of science. These sprints were accomplished with the technology of the day—steamships to the ice shelf followed by the use of dogs and manpower to make the tortuous journey. Many men died and many more suffered from frostbite, hunger and exhaustion. After Norway's Roald Amundsen and Britain's Robert Scott both reached the Pole in 1911 (with Scott's party all perishing on the way back), interest waned in duplicating their feats; it was far too expensive in both money and blood to do something that had already been done. Four decades went by before the next explorers arrived at the pole. They were Americans, and they simply flew there in an airplane. It will be the space equivalent of this airplane that will carry people back to the moon and to Mars and beyond. But what kind of engine will power it? I believe it must be a nuclear fission rocket—if we're to see it in our lifetimes. A fission rocket is a simple and safe system that uses a nuclear reactor to heat up a liquid such as hydrogen to create thrust. Unfortunately, "nuclear" and "fission" have been dirty words in this country for the last three decades. Despite the fact that nuclear propulsion is the best and safest way to fly major missions beyond Earth orbit, NASA stopped its development back in 1972 to put nearly every penny it had into the development of the shuttle. That was a terrible decision. At that point we had successfully tested nuclear rockets in the open air in Nevada, engines that could be operated with high thrusts for long durations—the key to entering the solar system. It's time to resurrect the nuclear rocket and confront the critics of nuclear energy, one of the cleanest forms of energy known. Hundreds of nuclear reactors are tooling around in the world's oceans right now, propelling submarines and aircraft carriers. Newer designs, including SAFE—the Safe, Affordable Fission Engine—are now being developed at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. But why send humans beyond low-Earth orbit at all? One word: energy. The low energy costs Americans currently enjoy are due to the abundant supply of fossil fuels. When those eventually go away—and they will—our advanced society may well collapse, unless we take the steps to prepare alternative energy sources. Wind, geothermal, tidal and solar energy resources can be added to the mix, but they will never supplant fossil fuel energy. For that we need something big. Only a combination of nuclear and space-based energy resources can ever take the place of fossil fuels. The solar system is filled with energy in a variety of forms, including solar energy, which could be microwaved back to Earth, and the isotope known as helium-3, which happens to cover the moon. Helium-3 may be the key to fusion energy; many energy researchers believe that fusing helium-3 with deuterium is the cleanest and cheapest approach to commercial fusion power. In my book Back to the Moon, I forecast a day when we'd desperately need that isotope but would lack the means to get it quickly without tremendous risks. I hope my forecast is proved wrong. But right now, it would be nearly impossible to organize new human missions to the moon on a short time-scale. NASA should devise a 15-year program to produce a working advanced space propulsion engine. Our elected representatives and the leaders of NASA should move in concert immediately to put this engine in the agency's budget, with a fixed schedule to build it. It should take a far higher priority than the space station. If we can just get our first advanced rocket booming around space, there will be no holding Americans back from the next frontiers. Homer Hickam, former NASA aerospace engineer and astronaut training manager, is the author of Back to the Moon, The Coalwood Way, Sky of Stone, We Are Not Afraid, and Rocket Boys, which was made into the film October Sky in 1999. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************