***************************************************************** 10/13/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.263 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Dump coal-fired stations to save nuclear power, says think-tank 2 Syria Angry About U.S. Stance on Nuclear Program NUCLEAR REACTORS 3 US: Inspectors find new signs of rust at Davis-Besse 4 US: San Onofre to remove radioactive storage tank 5 Is Chernobyl's Closure a Grave Mistake? 6 Leaks at India's nuclear-power plants: cause for concern? NUCLEAR SAFETY 7 US: Radiation Exposure at Nuclear Plant 8 AU: Nuclear, power facilities on terrorist alert - 9 US: Children of Cancer: citizens search for answers 10 FPL: St. Lucie nuclear plant workers exposed to radiation 11 US: Workers exposed in reactor incident 12 US: US Anti-Radiation Pill Plan Inadequate: Experts 13 US: Amendment fuels nuke workers' hopes NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 14 US: Federal Yucca Mountain office shifts from research to developmen 15 US: $2.85 million spent to kill Yucca Mountain project in Senate 16 US: Agency creates management jobs for Yucca project 17 US: $2.85 million spent to kill Yucca Mountain in Senate 18 US: OP: No excuses for dumping the nuclear waste on Nevada 19 US: Goshutes Feared Two Savage Enemies: Starvation, and the White Ma NUCLEAR WEAPONS 20 Congress Authorizes Bush to Attack Iraq 21 The Sunflower October 2002 (No. 65) 22 The Lowest-Tech Atom Bomb 23 Soviet submariner 'saved world' 24 Russia May Support New U.N. Efforts on Iraq 25 Thousands demonstrate in French capital against war on Iraq 26 Kremlin asks: where's your proof on Iraq? 27 Program takes viewers deep into nuclear threat 28 US: Allard: Staying in touch, making a difference 29 US: Renowned anti-nuclear warrior brings a timely message to mountai 30 More Revealed on Cuban Missile Crisis 31 Iraq Scrambles to Respond to U.S. 32 Film Probes German-Iraq Nuclear Link 33 Nevada site considered for production of nuclear weapons triggers 34 Blair's Russian mission fails as Putin questions UK 'propaganda' 35 US: Renowned anti-nuclear warrior brings a timely message to 36 Conference shows how close war was 37 Pentagon to Test New Toys on Iraq 38 Britain's crazy power game 39 Iraq says it reserves the right to end weapons inspections 40 Atomic India: How Hindu Nationalists learned to love the bomb 41 Iraq promises to behave 'professionally' toward UN weapons inspe 42 US: In their own words 43 UN Security Council sets date for Iraq debate 44 US: '62 crisis illuminates flaws of policy on Iraq 45 Iraq backs off deal with U.N. on inspections 46 US: Bush's evidence of threat disputed 47 US: Book: Three lives fused to the A-bomb 48 President Putin's doubts over Iraq 49 Carter Wins Nobel Peace Prize, Bush Rebuked 50 US: Rumsfeld Orders War Plans Redone for Faster Action US DEPT. OF ENERGY 51 DOE criticizes contractor's work 52 Idaho Lab Moves Nuclear Fuel from Wet to Dry Storage * OTHER NUCLEAR 53 U$ IRRADIATED FOOD to bear "cold pasteurized" label 54 Will Bush's carve-up of Iraq include getting hands on its oil? ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Dump coal-fired stations to save nuclear power, says think-tank Independent.co.uk © 2002 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd By Andy McSmith and Heather Tomlinson 13 October 2002 Britain's ailing nuclear industry could be rescued if the Government closed down some of the coal-fired stations, a left wing think-tank has suggested. The call, from the influential Blairite Institute of Public Policy Research, comes in the wake of the Government bail-out of British Energy and the mothballing of two power stations by Powergen and is being made as one of the largest coal stations in the UK heads towards a fresh financial crisis. Alex Evans, Energy Research Fellow at the IPPR, has warned ministers that if they bail out nuclear power company British Energy, which is in danger of going into administration, they would "make a mockery" of their own competition policy. The IPPR also hit out at financial support given to British Energy. "By supporting British Energy, the Government is unfairly penalising other energy companies ? and there is a real risk of political fallout if they fight back. Instead of focussing on short-term pain relief, the Government must address the real problem of overcapacity in generation," Mr Evans said. "This can be achieved in the short-term through incentive payments for the oldest and dirtiest coal stations to close early. This will help British Energy by easing overcapacity while at the same time reducing carbon dioxide emissions." Other energy companies have been hit by falling energy prices in the wake of the reform of the electricity market earlier this year. Drax, the coal-fired power station in Yorkshire, has been hit by high debt levels and rising insurance costs. Now it may have to renegotiate a lifesaving contract with TXU, the energy giant whose shares were briefly suspended in New York last week, as investors panicked over liquidity concerns. TXU reassured the market about its overall liquidity, but ratings agencies are still alarmed by prospects of a cash crunch at its European subsidiary. Fitch rating agency downgraded its debt last week to below investment grade level while Standard & Poor's downgraded due to "immediate liquidity concerns". "If TXU sinks, then there's a distinct probability that that would cause severe distress at Drax," said Michael Sonenshine, a high yield debt analyst at Credit Suisse First Boston. He has downgraded around £225m of Drax's bonds and claimed, in recent research, that they have no asset value. TXU has said it is renegotiating contracts with power stations that call for it to buy power at prices well above the current market rate. The contract at Drax is worth between £200m and £250m, and is responsible for more than half of the station's output. Garry Levesley, a vice president of AES, the US company that owns Drax, has said that the power station is the cleanest and most efficient coal-fired station in the UK. "The older, dirty stuff needs to be taken out of the system," he said. "The Government would be better off to buy the old, uncompetitive generators and shut them down." Drax has debts of £1bn and bankers fear it could default on the loans. The IPPR's call for the closure of coal- fired stations will come as a surprise to anyone who remembers the left wing slogans of the 1980s "Coal not dole" and "Nuclear power ? no thanks". Old priorities such as saving the jobs of miners have been replaced by more pragmatic concerns about climate change and the state of the energy market. ***************************************************************** 2 Syria Angry About U.S. Stance on Nuclear Program Oct 13, 2002 DAMASCUS (Reuters) - The Syrian foreign ministry demanded on Sunday that U.S. ambassador Theodore Kattouf explain his country's expression of concern about Syria's nuclear program, a ministry statement said. "A formal complaint was presented to him over what is being circulated by State Department spokesmen on Syrian-Russian cooperation in the field of nuclear research," the statement said. It was referring to remarks by U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton last week to a Senate committee. Bolton said: "We remain very concerned that the nuclear and missile programs of Iran and others, including Syria, continue to receive the benefits of Russian technology and expertise." Washington brands both Syria and Iran as state sponsors of "terrorism." State Department officials said last week they had no immediate explanation for Bolton's expression of concern about the Syrian program. They referred inquiries to a CIA report which says the Syrian nuclear program is for research and civilian purposes, notes Syria has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is under comprehensive safeguards through the International Atomic Energy Agency. "The (foreign) ministry requested a formal explanation at a time when the United States knows this," the Syrian statement said. "It expressed its strong distaste for cooperation between the United States and Israel in various arms fields, and for U.S. silence on the Israeli nuclear program." Syria's relations with Washington have been strained during the U.S. "war on terrorism," which Washington says also targets the Lebanese Hizbollah guerrillas and radical Palestinian groups that Damascus backs. Bolton, who is in charge of arms control and international security at the State Department, is a hawk suspicious of multilateral arms control agreements. He caused a stir earlier this year by saying that Cuba has a program to develop biological weapons. Many analysts said there was no credible evidence for the allegation. Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 3 Inspectors find new signs of rust at Davis-Besse The Plain Dealer 10/12/02 John Funk and John Mangels Plain Dealer Reporters In a potentially serious new development, inspectors have found rust stains where they had not found them before - on the bottom of the Davis-Besse nuclear reactor. For the last seven months, officials at Davis-Besse and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have been focused on rust on the reactor's lid - where leaking nozzles that passed through the lid ate a dangerous, footprint-sized hole. Rust at the opposite end of the reactor could mean that nozzles there may also have been leaking and causing corrosion in recent years. If laboratory tests now under way show the nozzles are cracked and that reactor coolant has been seeping out, repairs could pose another major obstacle to restarting the facility, which has been shut down since February. FirstEnergy Corp., owner of the damaged power plant near Toledo, said yesterday a contractor inspecting the bottom of the reactor discovered what appeared to be boric acid deposits and rust stains on the reactor's side and near some of the 52 nozzles, or tubes, that carry instrument wiring through the base of the vessel. The instruments monitor the nuclear reaction in the reactor's core. The light residues, called "trailings," may have formed when workers spray-washed the reactor's lid during refueling shutdowns in the 1990s, said company spokesman Todd Schneider. Or they might be tell-tale evidence of cracks in the instrument nozzles, which are made of the same nickel alloy as those in the lid. "We don't believe there is any leaking from those nozzles," said Schneider. Federal regulators, who learned of the situation this week, are taking a wait-and-see approach. "There is no evidence at this point to show that they have leakage," said Jan Strasma, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "I would not say the situation is serious at this point," he said. "It's too soon to know." The agency has asked FirstEnergy to submit a written report early next week, Strasma said. Boric acid, normally in the reactor's coolant to help enable nuclear fission, leaked through cracks in the reactor's lid nozzles over several years and ate a large rust hole through the 6½-inch steel lid - leaving only a thin stainless steel liner to contain the reactor's radioactive coolant. An inspector scraped samples of the residue from 12 of the bottom nozzles in an attempt to determine whether the corrosion ran down from the lid or leaked from a bottom nozzle. Some of the test results were inconclusive, and further analysis has been ordered. The inconsistent lab results do "not necessarily show a leak," Schneider said. "It could be just the way the concentration of boric acid built up, or the way the reactor head was cleaned at one time. "I wouldn't call it rust. It's more like staining, like washing a black car with well water." Though the bottom nozzles are made of the same material as those that cracked in the lid, the lower nozzles are not subjected to temperatures as high as 600 degrees, Schneider said. "The temperature is much cooler, making these nozzles less susceptible to cracking," he said. However, neither the industry nor the NRC fully understands how the stress cracks form. Research is ongoing. FirstEnergy's contractor wrote a brief account of the initial inspection of the reactor bottom after the stains were found on June 30. A second summary was written on Sept. 30. While available to the agency, these so-called condition reports are not formally submitted to the NRC, Strasma said. More than 7,000 such reports have been compiled by workers and inspectors this year. The NRC has created a special committee to determine whether FirstEnergy's repairs to the reactor and reforms of its management are sufficient to allow the plant to restart. The company has pushed back its deadline to have the plant ready for restarting until "early next year." But the NRC has final authority. To reach these Plain Dealer reporters: jfunk@plaind.com, 216-999-4138 jmangels@plaind.com, 216-999-4842 © 2002 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission. 2002 cleveland.com. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 4 San Onofre to remove radioactive storage tank SignOnSanDiego.com > News > North County -- By Kristen Green UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER October 12, 2002 SAN ONOFRE  A radioactive piece of this nuclear generating station's oldest reactor, Unit 1, will be removed today as part of an eight-year dismantling process. The steel, cylinder-shaped nuclear fuel storage vessel is 35 feet tall, 15 feet wide and 8 inches thick. It will be lifted from its protective shell by a crane that stands 350 feet tall and weighs 2,000 tons. The vessel will be placed into a steel canister, which will be stored at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station until next year. The steel canister will then be shipped to Barnwell, S.C., to be buried with other radioactive waste in a registered facility, said spokesman Ray Golden. It can't be carried by train because it's too wide or by truck because it weighs too much  600 tons, or about as much as nearly 500 Volkswagens. The container will be loaded onto a transport vehicle, moved onto a ship that will take it to the East Coast via the Panama Canal and then loaded onto another transport vehicle to take it to Barnwell, Golden said. Unit 1's majority owner and operator, Southern California Edison, began dismantling the reactor in 1999. The project will cost $500 million, which will be paid with fees collected from Edison customers over the 25 years the reactor was in use. By law, radioactive parts are required to be removed after operations end. The project is 25 percent complete. Kristen Green: (619) 542-4576; kristen.green@uniontrib.com © Copyright 2002 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 5 Is Chernobyl's Closure a Grave Mistake? Pravda.RU 18:54 2002-10-11 The other day, Ukraine’s parliament (the Rada) considered whether it was a mistake or not to close the Chernobyl nuclear plant. The question arose during a session of the parliament’s committee for fuel, energy, nuclear safety, and nuclear policy, which recently took place on the territory of the Chernobyl nuclear plant. The main problem on the agenda of the session was ending the plant’s exploitation. Committee member Oleg Panasovsky suggested that if at least one unit of the Chernobyl nuclear plant keeps on working and the energy it generates is sold, it would give Ukraine the financing necessary to realize important projects at the nuclear plant. Although the idea is really very fantastic, some deputies said that this was the largest mistake in the whole history of the energy system to close the Chernobyl nuclear plant. Director of the nuclear plant Yury Neretin says that, from technical point of view, the third generating unit can be started any time, but Ukraine can’t do it because of the political situation and important international liabilities it must observe. Chairman of the Ukrainian State Nuclear Inspection Vadim Grishenko objects to reopening the Chernobyl nuclear plant. He says that even though nuclear reactors similar to those used at the Chernobyl nuclear plant undergo modernization, it is still very risky to operate them. The probability of a radiation accident is one per every thousand years in this case, but the probability allowed by the standards is one per 100,000 years. Therefore, he says Leonid Kuchma’s decision to close the nuclear plant was absolutely reasonable and correct. This problem is likely to give food for more and more disputes in the future. However, it is perfectly clear, and was clear before closure of the plant, that it was closed because of political, not economical, reasons. Some time ago, Russian Deputy Minister from Nuclear Energy Bulat Nigmatullin said in an interview to Russia’s RTR television that Ukraine would suffer considerable losses if the Chernobyl nuclear plant closed. The third generating unit produced about 7 billion kWh at the cost of 200 USD. Nigmatullin was sure that the third unit was rather safe and could operate for fifteen years longer. Ukrainian communists strongly objected to the nuclear plant’s closure. Communist leader Pyotr Simonenko said that Kuchma’s decision to close the plant was political; he said that the decision damaged Ukraine’s national interests. However, Ukrainian “green” party is sure that the closure of the Chernobyl nuclear plant “means the beginning of an era of new ecological thinking in the country.” Unfortunately, there are no signs of this new ecological thinking in Ukraine so far. What is more, President Kuchma, who was the key initiator of the plant’s closure, had to admit in a year since the Chernobyl plant closure that the “number of problems connected with the closure didn’t reduce all.” The third generating unit of the Chernobyl nuclear plant was stopped on December 15, 2000 in accordance with the Ukraine president’s decree. Earlier, the government of Ukraine issued a decree on closure of the unit #1 on November 30, 1996 and of unit #2 – on March 15, 1999. Andrey Lubensky PRAVDA.Ru Ukraine Translated by Maria Gousseva Read the original in Russian: http://pravda.ru/main/2002/10/11/48294.html [http://pravda.ru/main/2002/10/11/48294.html] ***************************************************************** 6 Leaks at India's nuclear-power plants: cause for concern? | csmonitor.com from the October 11, 2002 edition Even the country's safest reactors don't meet international standards, according to its atomic regulations agency By V. K. Shashikumar | Special to The Christian Science Monitor NEW DELHI – Kakrapara Atomic Power Station (KAPS), in the western city of Surat, is India's well-groomed nuclear workhorse. Huge concrete domes enclose its two reactors, which generate a surplus of power for the country. And when it comes to controlling radiation leakage, KAPS is "our best station," says S.P. Sukhatme, chairman of India's Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB). That, it turns out, is bad news. KAPS may be India's prized nuclear plant, but radiation emitted from its reactors is three times as much as the international norm, says Mr. Sukhatme. It's a shocking admission that puts the rest of the country's nuclear-power plants in grave perspective. "The main implication is that other nuclear-power plants are much worse than even Kakrapar," says Suren Gadekar, considered to be India's top antinuclear activist. Four months ago, world leaders fretted about the possibility of two nuclear-weapons rivals, India and Pakistan, approaching the brink of war. That problem apparently on hold, India's nuclear scientists say the country could still face an equally devastating nuclear catastrophe – without a shot being fired. This time, the threat is not Pakistan or terrorists, but India's power plants themselves. Some scientists say that the plants are so poorly built and maintained, a Chernobyl-style disaster may be just a matter of time. "The fact that India's nuclear regulator acknowledges that reactors in India are not operated to the standards of reactors in the US and Europe is not much of a surprise," says Christopher Sherry, research director of the Safe Energy Communication Council in Washington. "But it is very disturbing." India tested its first nuclear device in May 1974. In 1998, the country successfully conducted five underground nuclear tests, heralding its entry into ga select group of countries capable of waging nuclear war. Today, the country has 14 nuclear power reactors including two at KAPS. Most are modeled after a design first built in Shippingport, Penn. in 1957, and considered by experts to be the most cost-effective way to produce electricity through nuclear energy. However only three of those nuclear reactors fall under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) standards. The rest – which were built with local technology – are accountable only to national standards set by the AERB. This February, Sukhatme asked the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd – a government-owned manufacturer of nuclear plants – to plug leakage of water contaminated with tritium, a highly radioactive substance, from reactors. "There is a clear need for reducing the exposure to workers," he says. Also earlier this year, the AERB ordered the closure of India's first nuclear plant in the state of Rajasthan. The reactor that put India on the nuclear world map developed a series of defects, starting with "turbine-blade failures." Gradually the reactor was wrecked by "cracks in the end-shields, a leak in the calandria overpressure relief device, a leak in many tubes in the moderator heat exchanger." While the government releases no information about leaks or accidents at its nuclear power plants, Dhirendra Sharma, a scientist who has written extensively on India's atomic-power projects, has compiled figures based on his own reporting. "An estimated 300 incidents of a serious nature have occurred, causing radiation leaks and physical damage to workers," he says. "These have so far remained official secrets." According to critics like Mr. Gadekar, India's nuclear-power program has always been secretive because politicians use it as a cover for the country's weapons program. "Right from Jawaharlal Nehru [India's first prime minister] onward, our leaders have always claimed that the nuclear-power program is a 'peaceful' program, whereas the weapons implications were always there in the background," says Gadekar. "As a result, secrecy has become a way of life for these people." The chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission, Anil Kakodkar, has repeatedly asserted that his group is doing what it can to ensure that the country's power plants are safe. Still, leaks continues to raise serious questions about safety. Part of the problem, says N.M. Sampathkumar Iyangar, a former manufacturer of nuclear reactor components, is that well-connected manufacturers are able to cut deals with politicians in India's Department of Energy, often selling defective parts, which are then used to build reactors. But others, like Dr. Kakodkar, say the real problem is that new technology designed to upgrade safety at power plants is too expensive for developing countries like India. According to Kakodkar, India should not be held accountable to international standards until the international community helps make such technology available to developing countries. "Safety and technology cannot be divorced," he says. For further information: • [http://www.dae.gov.in/] • [http://www.ccnr.org/india_map.html] Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility • [http://www.powerplant.com/] Please Note: The Monitor does not endorse the sites behind these links. We offer them for your additional research. Following these links will open a new browser window. Copyright © 2002 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights ***************************************************************** 7 Radiation Exposure at Nuclear Plant October 12, 2002 ASSOCIATED PRESS HUTCHINSON ISLAND, Fla.- Federal officials are investigating how 28 nuclear power plant workers were exposed to radiation during a maintenance operation. Florida Power & Light, owner of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, said plant employees and several outside contractors inhaled radioactive particles Oct. 6 during maintenance work on one of the plant's two units. The radiation was at a "very low" level, and none of the workers reported feeling sick, the company said. FPL officials expected some radiation to be released during the operation, and two workers who were pressure-cleaning beneath the top part of the reactor in the 230-foot-tall building were wearing protective suits. However, the 28 workers 62 feet above them were not wearing any protection. "The dose is expected to be kept as low as reasonably achievable, and in this incident we're not sure that's what occurred," said Len Wert, an Atlanta-based branch chief for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which supervises inspectors at Florida's nuclear plants. In August, the NRC ordered 69 of the nation's 103 nuclear reactor facilities to test certain reactor heads after inspections revealed corrosion and cracks at two plants in South Carolina and Ohio. This was the first such cleaning at the St. Lucie plant. Federal inspectors are investigating whether FPL followed government guidelines, said NRC spokesman Roger Hannah. * / All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 8 AU: Nuclear, power facilities on terrorist alert - smh.com.au By Fia Cumming October 13 2002 The Sun-Herald Power stations and Lucas Heights nuclear reactor have been put on to the highest security alert after a warning of a possible Al Qaeda terrorist attack. The Bush Administration warned the Howard Government on Friday night that it had received information that Al Qaeda was planning another major terrorist attack soon. The warning followed the broadcast in Qatar last week of a tape recording purported to be the voice of Osama bin Laden, threatening new attacks on America. According to the US advice, the attack is likely to be directed against power production or transmission stations or similar installations. Federal Attorney-General Daryl Williams said current US thinking was that the tape recording might have been of Osama bin Laden, meaning he was still alive despite the destruction of his Afghanistan headquarters. Mr Williams said there was no information of a specific threat to a facility in Australia and the same warning had been provided to a number of countries, believed to include the UK, France and Germany. ");document.write(" advertisement "); } } // --> Australia was more likely to be subjected to an attack given its strong support for President George Bush. "[The warning's] been given to Australia on the basis that Australia has been seen as at higher risk as a terrorist target since September the 11th," Mr Williams said. Mr Williams said there had been a non-specific threat against Australia, the UK and the US last December, butthis time the information was more specific about the likely target. The national Security Incident Task Force met late on Friday, as soon as the US advice had been received, and recommended the public be alerted. Security around companies and agencies in the energy sector has been tightened. Although Lucas Heights is not a power generation plant, it has been considered a potential target since the September 11 attacks. Meanwhile Al Qaeda expert Rohan Gunaratna warned last week that an Al Qaeda cell had been directed to penetrate Australia and destroy targets here. Copyright © 2002. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 9 Children of Cancer: citizens search for answers Frank X. Mullen Jr. [fmullen@rgj.com] RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL 10/12/2002 07:53 pm [Cancer survivor Alyssa Reidenbach, 13, watches as others prepare for a house-to-house survey planned for today in Elk Grove, Calif. - Marilyn Newton/RGJ] Today, 250 volunteers are scheduled to walk 489 blocks of this Sacramento suburb to find out if the community has a leukemia cluster that so far has been invisible to California health officials. Today in Fallon, volunteers are preparing to knock on every door in town this week in an effort to determine the area’s cancer burden in a county where 16 children have been diagnosed with leukemia since 1997 and three have died. From Fallon to Sierra Vista, Ariz., from Marion, Ohio, to San Antonio, residents say they are frustrated by what they characterize as health officials’ reassurances and government inaction. They are taking to the streets to search for the truth about cancer cases and the environmental pollutants that may cause the diseases. It’s a grassroots effort, empowering communities to take health matters into their own hands, according to advocates for a national disease tracking system and the activists who have formed research groups in their communities. “I just got tired of six years of the bureaucratic run-around,” said Dee Lewis, who organized the Sacramento survey. “Health officials said there’s no cancer cluster, and we keep finding more cases. “It’s time for residents to take action. What exactly is the situation here? If the officials can’t tell us, then we have to find out ourselves by knocking on every door.” It’s a waste of time, said some public health officials who believe their computerized cancer registries would have pinpointed clusters if they existed. They said amateur surveys and part-time ecological investigations aren’t scientific and won’t shed much light on public health problems. “Never, ever will you find out something when you go through one small neighborhood at a time,” said Bill Wright, chief of the surveillance section for the California Department of Health Services. He said there’s no evidence of high incidence of cancer in south Sacramento. “I want to find out what causes cancer too, but there are better ways to do it than conducting large-scale environmental investigations in small neighborhoods.” Military bases are suspects Some leukemia clusters in the nation are close to military bases, and some residents suspect pollution from the facilities — from toxic underground plumes to old waste dumps to the JP-8 fuel used in military aircraft — may be the cause of the epidemics. “In Fallon, I think JP-8 jet fuel is the culprit,” said Floyd Sands, who lost his 21-year-old daughter, Stephanie, to leukemia last year. Sands, who now lives in Pennsylvania, is leading this week’s cancer survey in Fallon. “The Fallon Naval Air Station pilots have routinely dumped fuel before landing, even though the Navy denies it,” he said. “And there has never been a real investigation of the jet fuel pipeline that runs through town to the Navy base. I think it’s the fuel.” Navy officials and the pipeline company have said nothing they’ve done can affect the health of Fallon residents. And although some cancer clusters are near military bases and flight paths, those examples remain rare. Finding the causes of cancer clusters can be confounding. “To show an association between disease and military contamination, one has to explain why people living near other contaminated bases haven’t come down with the same diseases,” said Lenny Siegel, director of the Center for Public Environmental Oversight in Mountain View, Calif. “Maybe no one counted the cases? Or perhaps there is no exposure pathway. But it’s hard to figure out what is unique about the sites like Fallon where the disease rates are high.” Those are questions residents and governments are trying to answer. In some cases health investigators have responded quickly to community concerns. In others, state officials insist there are no problems, no clusters, and no contamination. Helping themselves For many residents, trust in health agencies is running thin. “People meet too many neighbors with the same disease in a small area, and they start to wonder what’s going on,” said Lois Banks, director of community health for the Trust for America’s Health, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group. “They go to officials for help, but when nothing happens, they say if the government won’t do something maybe we ought to do something ourselves.” The Trust for America’s Health is the prime mover behind the proposal for a nationwide health tracking network that monitors chronic diseases and the environmental factors that may be related to them. Nevada is among 20 states and cities getting start-up grants for tracking networks. But such a system is years away and many communities face disease outbreaks or suspected cancer clusters now. Activists complain health officials either ignore the suspected epidemics or, when a cancer cluster is confirmed, don’t do enough to investigate possible causes. “The more communities rise up to the occasion, the more people will take notice,” Banks said. “But it’s not easy to do (investigations). It’s difficult to even know what is the right data to collect.” She said the solution is a national system coupled with a cooperative effort between health officials and the communities they serve. She said both diseases and environmental exposures also must be monitored if communities are ever to know the reasons why the incidence of chronic diseases is on the rise. In the meantime, residents who don’t like the official answers to their health concerns are taking action. To track a killer, they are knocking on doors, crunching their own numbers and wading through piles of environmental records. Mom becomes an activist Dee Lewis is an accidental activist. Lewis, 37, is a mother of two who began asking California health officials in 1996 about what she thought was a rising leukemia rate in her neighborhood. She said she was consistently told nothing was out of the ordinary, but she kept hearing about more leukemia or leukemia-related diseases like lymphoma in the area. She is a founder of Concerned Citizens’ Initiative, a group dedicated to finding out if there’s a cancer problem in the south Sacramento neighborhoods. Over the last two weeks, Lewis and others confirmed 12 cases of leukemia and leukemia-related diseases within their square-mile census tract. That number includes four cases of acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) in young children, the same type of leukemia diagnosed in 15 of the 16 patients in the Fallon cancer cluster. Seven patients with leukemia or leukemia-related cancers live along the same block in the Calvine-Florin area, she said. California health officials said there’s no indication of elevated leukemia rates in the area. Their cancer registry shows three cases of childhood ALL in the census tract, a number less than the expected rate. They said Lewis is wrongly lumping in different forms of leukemia in her numbers and counting cases that aren’t statistically relevant. “We’ve been working with (Lewis) for six years and we’ve been looking at the data to see if there is an elevated number of cases,” Wright said. “There is not. Before we will mount an investigation we have to have some evidence of an elevated number of cases and evidence of some contamination in the area.” Lewis said when another cancer case surfaces in the neighborhood, officials tell her it’s irrelevant. She said she stopped believing them. “I don’t want to scare the public, but we need to find out if there is a problem here or not,” Lewis said. “I didn’t want to spend a lot of time and emotion on this, but now we have to. There are too many questions.” Lewis not only pinpointed leukemia cases near her home, but also waded through the area’s water quality records and found pollution reports showing a dry cleaning chemical was detected in two area drinking water wells. Sacramento County officials said water from those wells was diluted with other water sources and the contamination never reached people’s tap water. The wells have been closed down. “The first phase of this community effort is to define the cancer burden,” Lewis said. “Phase 2 is to continue looking for contamination sources.” Her home has become the war room for a growing number of volunteers who today plan to canvass all 489 blocks of the census tract to chronicle the incidence of leukemia cases and other cancers. “We’ve got more than 250 walkers and about 500 blocks to cover,” she said. “Let’s bang this out in one day.” As Lewis and the block captains organized for the survey last week, home phones and cell phones rang, a new fax machine buzzed, volunteers stuck pins on maps and mothers of cancer patients and leukemia survivors arrived with their children in tow. “It’s a sea change, a paradigm shift,” Lewis said. “All the health people have done is try to placate us. That’s over. We’ll do our own research, get our own results and we won’t stop until we get answers and find solutions.” Fallon survey begins Lewis’ words echo those of some of the families of Fallon leukemia patients who this summer formed Families In Search of Truth (FIST). The group plans to do its own research and has notified Nevada health officials that if they won’t help they can get out of the way. That attitude is frustrating to Randall Todd, Nevada state epidemiologist. Todd noted that Nevada officials took action when four leukemia cases were identified in Fallon in June 2000 and the state conducted a preliminary investigation. Last year, state and federal health and environmental agencies took biological and environmental samples in Fallon. The results of those tests are scheduled to be released later this year. “In Sacramento, health officials aren’t acknowledging there’s a cluster and some residents disagree,” Todd said. “I guess they have to look at the situation themselves, and I can see where they are coming from.” But in Fallon everything possible has been done to seek answers, he said. In terms of past cancer investigations, he said, the Fallon probe is progressing at light speed and bringing new technologies to bear that have never been used in a disease probe. Still, families of cancer patients said the Health Division often gives them conflicting answers, sometimes ignores evidence, and doesn’t seem to have the will to find the truth in Fallon. “They have a defeatist attitude and they had that from the beginning,” said Sands, who is in Fallon today preparing for the cancer survey. “I’ve been lied to and given the run-around for two years and I have absolutely no faith in the Nevada Health Division.” On Monday, Sands is scheduled to lead dozens of volunteers in a survey of more than 3,000 Fallon households. The volunteers, who include residents and students from Reno and Sparks, will be asking about incidences of cancer, dates of diagnosis and years of residence in Fallon. “I don’t pretend this is scientific, but we’ll do the best we can to gather data and then let university experts look at it,” Sands said. “It feels good to be out there doing something. If we wait for the government to do it, we’ll wait forever.” Although FIST isn’t sponsoring Sands’ survey, some of its members are taking part, Sands said. FIST also plans to do its own research to search for a cause of the cluster, members said. Texans knock on doors Even when state and federal agencies investigate a cluster and find partial answers, some communities fight for more to be done. In San Antonio, a federal health investigation in 1999 found 84 cases of leukemia, including 13 cases of acute lymphocytic leukemia in children, clustered in three Zip code areas at the east end of the former Kelly Air Force Base. The study by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry also identified contamination both on and around the base, including high levels of the solvent benzene in the air. “Then they walked away,” said Angel Martinez of the Community Environmental Justice Action committee of the Southwest Workers’ Union in San Antonio. She said the former Air Force base is being turned into Kelly USA, a business and distribution center key to the area’s economic development. Looking into cancer clusters was not high on the local agenda, she said, because officials feared businesses would be scared away from San Antonio. “We’ve been pressing the government to do something more because people are still being exposed to contamination,” Martinez said. “The federal studies that were done here were a paper chase, looking at death certificates and documents. But you go door-to-door, you get different answers.” Committee members did their own neighborhood cancer surveys. They found more cases. They investigated contamination at Kelly and they lobbied public officials. A week ago the activists met with health officers and federal representatives to develop a strategy for working together, Martinez said. “My advice for other communities is to challenge the officials and to keep fighting for the truth,” she said. “Organize and find out what’s really going on. “People’s lives are at stake. You can’t depend on government agencies to do anything without being prodded.” © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett ***************************************************************** 10 FPL: St. Lucie nuclear plant workers exposed to radiation Jacksonville.com: 10/12/02 The Associated Press HUTCHINSON ISLAND, Fla. - Federal officials are investigating how 28 Florida power plant workers were exposed to radiation during a maintenance operation. Florida Power & Light, owner of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, said plant employees and several outside contractors inhaled radioactive particles Oct. 6 during maintenance work on one of the plant's two units. FPL officials expected some radiation to be released during the operation, and two workers who were pressure-cleaning beneath the top part of the reactor in the 230-tall building were wearing protective suits. However, the 28 workers 62 feet above them were not wearing any protection. "The dose is expected to be kept as low as reasonably achievable, and in this incident we're not sure that's what occurred," said Len Wert, an Atlanta-based branch chief for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which supervises NRC inspectors at Florida's nuclear plants. The 28 workers inhaled what FPL called "very low" levels of radiation. None of them reported feeling sick, FPL said. In August, the NRC ordered 69 of the nation's 103 nuclear reactor facilities to test certain reactor heads after inspections revealed corrosion and cracks at two plants in South Carolina and Ohio in 2001 and earlier this year. This was the first such cleaning at the St. Lucie plant. The NRC is investigating to see if FPL followed federal guidelines, said Roger Hannah, NRC spokesman. Information from: The Palm Beach Post Copyright 2002 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be ***************************************************************** 11 Workers exposed in reactor incident PalmBeachPost.com: By Deborah Circelli, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Saturday, October 12, 2002 HUTCHINSON ISLAND -- Federal officials are reviewing an "unexpected" incident Sunday at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant in which 28 workers were exposed to radiation. Employees of Florida Power & Light Co. and outside contractors inhaled radioactive particles during maintenance and refueling of Unit One at the two-unit plant on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, FPL said. "The dose is expected to be kept as low as reasonably achievable, and in this incident we're not sure that's what occurred," said Len Wert, an Atlanta-based branch chief for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission who supervises NRC inspectors at Florida's nuclear plants. Two workers were pressure-cleaning beneath the top part of the reactor -- known as the reactor vessel head -- when radioactive particles were released into the air, FPL said. The reactor houses the nuclear fuel. The utility said it expected some contamination to be released, which is why the two workers, who were located on the lowest level of the containment building, were wearing protective respiratory equipment. But FPL officials said they did not expect the radioactive particles to travel upward 62 feet to where other employees, who were not wearing protective gear, were working in the building, which is 230 feet tall. Sunday marked the first time at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant that the vessel head was pressured-cleaned before it was tested for cracks. In August, the NRC ordered 69 of the nation's 103 nuclear reactor facilities to test certain reactor heads after inspections revealed corrosion and cracks at two plants in South Carolina and Ohio last year and this year. The two workers who were pressure-cleaning were not exposed. Twenty-eight other workers inhaled what FPL called "very low" levels of radiation, in the 1- to 2-millirem range. Radiation is measured in rems; the annual exposure limit for nuclear workers, according to the NRC, is 5 rems. It takes 1,000 millirems to equal 1 rem. "It is not unusual or unexpected to have some exposure to the workers in the containment building during every refueling outage," said Rachel Scott, FPL spokeswoman. No one was injured or had any negative health impact, Scott said. Everyone on Earth is exposed to about 300 millirems of radiation every year from natural sources, she said. But the NRC said the incident was "unexpected" and "not desirable." Commission officials did not know Friday whether any similar incidents have been reported at other plants. "Anytime there is unexpected or unplanned exposure, that is something that piques our interest," said Roger Hannah, NRC spokesman. "That is something you don't want to see occur." The NRC agrees preliminary findings show the exposure was "well within" the federal limits, but it tis still trying to determine if FPL followed all federal guidelines. FPL is also investigating to see what measures can be put in place to prevent a similar problem when cleaning work is done at Unit Two and the Turkey Point plant near Homestead next year, Scott said. FPL, a subsidiary of Juno Beach-based FPL Group, operates the St. Lucie and Turkey Point plants. Rick Curtis, a worker at the plant and president of the local International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union, has been approached by several employees who were worried about exposure. He said he is trying to gather information from management to ease employee concerns. "I'm not aware of what the errors were or how significant the contaminations were," Curtis said. deborah_circelli@pbpost.com [deborah_circelli@pbpost.com] Copyright © 2002, The Palm Beach Post. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 US Anti-Radiation Pill Plan Inadequate: Experts ABCNEWS.com : October 11, 2002 [Reuters] — By Kathleen Doheny LOS ANGELES (Reuters Health) - Current programs that stockpile and distribute tablets to protect residents from developing thyroid cancer after a nuclear accident are far from adequate, a group of experts on thyroid health warned Thursday. Potassium iodide tablets can protect the thyroid gland from radioactive iodine released in nuclear accidents, thus preventing the later development of thyroid cancer. But current programs in the United States to ensure that people exposed to radiation get the tablets don't go far enough, officials from the American Thyroid Association warned at the group's annual meeting here. The shortfall is particularly serious, the officials said, in the wake of the September 11 attacks and the realization that nuclear terrorism is possible. Sixteen of the 34 states that either have a nuclear plant in operation or are located within a 10-mile radius of a nuclear plant have accepted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's offer last December to participate in a program that offers free potassium iodide pills for each resident within a 10-mile emergency zone radius. Two other states have their own potassium iodide programs. But 100% participation is crucial, thyroid experts said. Some experts blame the lag in participation on what they see as the nuclear power industry's downplaying of the risks. "My prejudicial opinion is, it is not in the interest of the power industry of this country to raise doubts about the safety of nuclear power," said Dr. David V. Becker, who chaired a symposium on the topic Thursday and is professor of radiology and of medicine at Weill-Cornell Medical College at New York Presbyterian Hospital. "They don't want the public to be disturbed." The current stockpiling program does not go far enough, Becker and other experts said. Effective in June 2003, the recommended radius of distribution will be expanded to a 20-mile radius under the so-called bioterrorism bill, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. But the association, along with other medical organizations, says the ideal radius is 200 miles, and that all residents within that radius should be offered the pills. The supplement, when taken in the face of exposure to radioactive iodine released in a nuclear accident, can help prevent thyroid cancer from developing. The thyroid gland-a butterfly-shaped organ in the neck--needs iodine to produce the hormones that regulate energy and metabolism, and absorbs it from the blood stream. But the thyroid isn't capable of distinguishing radioactive iodine from non-radioactive iodine. If potassium iodide pills are taken, it fills the thyroid cells with stable iodine and prevents the gland from absorbing radioactive iodine. Three brands of potassium iodide are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, including IOSAT, Thryo-Block and ThyroSafe. But thyroid experts warn that the pills should not be taken as a preventive measure in advance of a nuclear accident. "A key point is that potassium iodide should not be taken until public health officials say it should be taken," Becker said. Copyright 2002 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved. This material may Copyright © 2002 ABCNEWS Internet Ventures. ***************************************************************** 13 Amendment fuels nuke workers' hopes PittsburghLIVE.com - By Mary Ann Thomas [mathomas@tribweb.com] VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH Sunday, October 13, 2002 They're tired and they're discouraged. Some of them are dead. Plans are under way to help Cold War nuclear fuel workers to receive $150,000 from the federal government for illnesses caused by radiation. But former workers are going to wait. U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Lucasville, Ohio, introduced legislation in late September to help speed the processing of worker claims and to include more illnesses covered by the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The act recognizes the health abuses of workers in the nuclear weapons field during the Cold War. Affected former workers can receive a lump sum of $150,000 and medical benefits. But it's unlikely the new amendment will make it to the House of Representatives floor this year because of a potential war with Iraq and Congressional elections. "There is good reason to be hopeful to press for this legislation early next year," Strickland said. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, signed on as a co-author of the amendment Wednesday, according to Strickland. "That's huge," Strickland said. "Mr. Murtha has great respect and influence in Congress. Having his support will significantly increase the likelihood of this passing into law." Strickland said he is confident his amendment will pass the House because it builds on the intent of the existing act. "All the arguments and rationale that made it easy for members to support original bill are applicable for this amendment." One obstacle is the money — how much will the amendment cost the government? "It's unconscionable that we would recognize the problem and say, 'Sorry, we don't have the money.' We have money to do what is important to do," Strickland said. But for some workers, the wait may be too long. "We're not going to get anything — maybe when I'm dead," said Gary Walker, 62, of Vandergrift. He worked for NUMEC for more than a decade. He has renal disease and is trying to get on a list for a second kidney transplant. NUMEC nuclear fuel-processing plants in Apollo and Parks are among other facilities in the state flagged for the program. These plants were subsequently owned by the Atlantic-Richfield Co. and later Babcock &Wilcox. Renal disease was not on the original list of covered illnesses of the compensation act. Strickland's amendment adds it to the list. Many health physicists throughout the country had criticized the initial act for not including the disease, which can be caused by excessive exposure to radiation. As of last month, a little more than 100 former NUMEC workers had filed claims. Many of those claims are still pending. "I apologize on behalf of this government," Strickland said. "Too much time has passed and as a member of Congress, I am sorry. Workers should not get discouraged." Strickland said he has seen claimant checks for $150,000. Some claims could be acted on well within the next year, according to Larry Elliot, director of the office of compensation analysis and support of NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). NIOSH recently hired a contractor to conduct dose assessments of workers. About 8,000 claims have been sent to NIOSH for assessments. The agency plans on completing hundreds of assessments in the next few months, according to Elliot. But Strickland's amendment, if passed, would set deadlines for assessments. Richard Miller, a policy analyst for the Government Accountability Project, said of the amendment: "We think this fixes the major problems in the program. This bill will be the standard for any repair that will be judged." Murtha supports NUMEC workers petitioning for special exposure status. If radiation exposure estimates for a group of workers are not feasible because of lack of records or questionable exposure records, then workers will be considered for a special exposure group. Miller's group, GAP, conducted a preliminary review of NUMEC workers this year and found gross negligence with repeated violations concerning workers' health during select periods of the 1960s. Miller recommends that workers and their families file claims individually and apply for special cohort status. Strickland's amendments would be helpful to NUMEC workers, he said. Allen echoed Miller's advice: "The restrictions that have been put in place by the original legislation has made it more difficult than easier for workers. We want to make sure that people damaged on the job get compensation. This may be best served through the special exposure cohort group." But again, time is not on the workers' side. And a final rule has not been established for how workers would apply for the cohort status. For information Former workers or the families of deceased workers at the Apollo and Parks nuclear processing plants can apply for compensation and medical benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act. Workers must have or had cancer and other illnesses covered by act. For more information, contact: + Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program help line: 1-866-888-3322. + National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: 1-800-356-4674 or e-mail ocas@cdc.gov [ocas@cdc.gov] . + U.S. Department of Labor, EEOIC, 1001 Lakeside Drive, Suite 350, Cleveland, OH 44114; or call 216-802-1300. Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act highlights + The Department of Labor will pay benefits instead of the Department of Energy. U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio, who introduced the amendment in late September, said the DOE is too slow in processing worker claims and is involved in questionable agreements with individual states for claims. + Chronic renal disease will be added as a covered illness. Lung cancer will be added to the list of covered beryllium diseases. Beryllium is a toxin that was used in creating nuclear fuel. + An ombudsman — a government official appointed to receive and investigate complaints — will assist claimants. + When medical records necessary for processing a claim cannot be produced by DOE or a DOE contractor, former workers can submit affidavits and other back-up information to prove employment. + A 150-day deadline will be set for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to complete dose reconstruction for worker claims and a 180-day deadline for NIOSH to respond to Special Exposure Cohort petitions. Special cohort status gives groups of workers with covered illnesses an automatic acceptance of many claims. If NIOSH does not meet these deadlines, claims and petitions will be granted. Mary Ann Thomas can be reached at mathomas@tribweb.com [mathomas@tribweb.com] or (724 )226-4691. Images and text copyright © 2002 by The Tribune-Review Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 14 Federal Yucca Mountain office shifts from research to development Las Vegas SUN October 11, 2002 ASSOCIATED PRESS LAS VEGAS (AP) - The Energy Department is installing new Yucca Mountain Project managers in Nevada and Washington as it shifts the program from research to building a national nuclear waste repository. W. John Arthur III, a veteran Energy Department manager in New Mexico, will become chief of site development and licensing in early December in a newly created job, deputy director for repository development, the agency announced this week. Arthur will be based in Las Vegas and will become chief of Nevada-based operations that involve 100 federal workers and 1,500 contract workers in the city and at the proposed nuclear waste burial site. The department said it is recruiting a counterpart to become deputy director at Washington headquarters in charge of strategy and program development, another new post. The moves fill top Yucca Mountain Project management spots below Margaret Chu, chief of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. They come with the federal government shifting its focus from decades of research to designing a repository and seeking licenses to build and operate it. Allen Benson, an Energy Department spokesman in Las Vegas, said the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office in Las Vegas is changing its name to the Office of Repository Development. Congress approved the Yucca Mountain project in July, following President Bush's endorsement of an Energy Department plan developed over 20 years. Nevada and environmental groups are mounting legal challenges against entombing the nation's commercial, industrial and military radioactive waste beneath Yucca Mountain, a volcanic ridge 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Bob Loux, who heads the state's efforts at the state Agency for Nuclear Projects, questioned why the Energy Department was adding top positions at the same time it is complaining about possible budget cuts. Arthur has been manager of the National Nuclear Security Administration's Albuquerque Operations Office, which oversees two national laboratories and nuclear weapons production. The Security Administration is a branch of the Energy Department. In a 24-year government career, Arthur has managed the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, a repository for mixed nuclear waste. He managed the 1989 supplemental environmental impact statement for WIPP. In a statement, DOE said Arthur's experience includes nuclear materials transportation, nuclear facility construction and environmental management services. J. Russell Dyer, who has led the Las Vegas office as Yucca Mountain Project manager, will become senior project adviser under Arthur in Las Vegas. Plans call for the first shipments of 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel to begin arriving at Yucca Mountain in 2010. Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 15 $2.85 million spent to kill Yucca Mountain project in Senate Las Vegas SUN: October 12, 2002 ASSOCIATED PRESS $2.85 million spent to kill Yucca Mountain project in Senate CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - Nevada taxpayers and volunteer contributors paid out $2.85 million in a failed effort to win votes in the U.S. Senate against Yucca Mountain, but the campaign was not in vain, according to a report detailing the expenses. The report, prepared by the Agency for Nuclear Projects, shows a state-by-state breakdown on the effort called Nuclear Neighborhoods, including such details as when anti-Yucca Mountain television ads aired in each state. Bob Loux, executive director of the agency, is forwarding the report to lawmakers and others who wanted to see how the money was spent. Although the campaign to win enough Senate votes to defeat Yucca Mountain failed, the money was not wasted, the report said. "Nuclear Neighborhoods served its purpose of exposing inconsistencies in the government's arguments for Yucca Mountain and provided the public with an alternative viewpoint to this controversial issue," the report said. Without being able to identify the numbers with any precision, the report said the campaign did result in some senators supporting Nevada's position. "We cannot attribute specific numbers to his conversion, but the final vote count in the Senate improved from pre-campaign estimates," the report said. The campaign also generated national and international news coverage of the project and generated 9,900 faxes and 5,500 calls to targeted senators, the report said. On July 9, senators voted 60-39 in favor of the Yucca Mountain project. Nevada's fight has now moved into the legal and licensing arenas. The report shows the biggest single expense was television advertising at $1.1 million. The money was spent in states where Nevada officials thought votes could be swayed, including Utah, Wyoming, Vermont, Iowa and Georgia. The report shows $70,000 was spent on television in Vermont. Just under $100,000 was spent in Wyoming. The television money was overseen by consultants hired by Nevada Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev. The entire $1.1 million in state money was spent directly on television advertising, Loux said. Other efforts to sway votes, including an Internet-based education campaign, was overseen by Brown &Partners of Las Vegas, which had contracted with the state Agency for Nuclear Projects. The company's management fee was $62,500. The Internet campaign and related World Wide Web programs, handled for Brown by Issue Dynamics Inc., cost $688,000. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which carried mock casks across the nation's highways to draw attention to the dangers of transporting nuclear waste, was paid $128,000. Another $560,000 was spent on newspaper advertising in various states, and $50,000 was spent on direct mail, including a Yucca Mountain press kit, which cost $17,475. Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 16 Agency creates management jobs for Yucca project reviewjournal.com -- News: Friday, October 11, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Energy Department officials say new posts reflect shift from research to building dump By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department is installing new Yucca Mountain Project managers in Nevada and Washington, part of a program shift that includes a new name for its Las Vegas office. W. John Arthur III, a veteran DOE manager in New Mexico, will become chief of site development and licensing in early December in a newly created job, deputy director for repository development, the agency announced this week. Arthur will be based in Las Vegas and would become chief of Nevada-based operations that involve 100 federal workers and 1,500 contract workers in the city and at the proposed nuclear waste burial site, 100 miles to the northwest. The department said it is recruiting a counterpart who will become deputy director at Washington headquarters in charge of strategy and program development, another new post. The move bolsters top Yucca Mountain Project management below Margaret Chu, chief of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, government and industry officials said. The move comes at a time when the federal government is shifting its focus from decades of research to designing a repository and seeking licenses to build and operate it while defending against challenges from Nevada and environmental groups. "This is a sign the department is moving forward in the next phase of the project," said Rod McCullum, senior project manager for used fuel management at the Nuclear Energy Institute. Nevada officials who are fighting the proposed repository took a dimmer view. Bob Loux, chief of the state Agency for Nuclear Projects, questioned why the Energy Department was adding top positions at the same time it is complaining about possible budget cuts. "It begs the question when DOE does these things," Loux said. The personnel changes reflect a growing importance of Yucca Mountain within the Energy Department, said Allen Benson, a DOE spokesman in Las Vegas. "Now that we have a site designation, the organization now is being elevated," Benson said. "It reflects the significant action that is now going on." The sign on the door in Las Vegas will change soon, Benson said. The Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office will become the Office of Repository Development, he said. Arthur is manager of the National Nuclear Security Administration's Albuquerque Operations Office, which oversees two national laboratories and nuclear weapons production. The Security Administration is a branch of the Energy Department. The department declined to make Arthur available for comment. Russ Dyer, who has led the Las Vegas office as Yucca Mountain Project Manager, will become senior project adviser under Arthur in Las Vegas. In a 24-year government career, Arthur has managed the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, a repository for mixed nuclear waste. He managed the 1989 supplemental environmental impact statement for WIPP. In a statement, DOE said Arthur's experience includes nuclear materials transportation, nuclear facility construction and environmental management services. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 Stephens Media ***************************************************************** 17 $2.85 million spent to kill Yucca Mountain in Senate Saturday, October 12, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Agency for Nuclear Projects report says effort `served its purpose' By SEAN WHALEY REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU CARSON CITY -- Nevada taxpayers and volunteer contributors paid out $2.85 million in a failed state effort to win votes in the U.S. Senate against Yucca Mountain, but the campaign was not in vain, according to a report detailing the expenses. The report, prepared by the Agency for Nuclear Projects, shows a state-by-state breakdown on the effort called Nuclear Neighborhoods, including such details as when anti-Yucca Mountain television ads aired in each state. Bob Loux, executive director of the agency, is forwarding the report to lawmakers and others who wanted to see a final accounting of how the money was spent. Although the campaign to win enough Senate votes to defeat Yucca Mountain failed, the money was not wasted, according to an executive summary in the voluminous report. "Nuclear Neighborhoods served its purpose of exposing inconsistencies in the government's arguments for Yucca Mountain and provided the public with an alternative viewpoint to this controversial issue," the report said. Without being able to identify the numbers with any precision, the report said that the campaign did result in some senators ultimately supporting Nevada's position. "We cannot attribute specific numbers to his conversion, but the final vote count in the Senate improved from pre-campaign estimates," the report said. The campaign also generated national and international news coverage of the project and generated 9,900 faxes and 5,500 calls to targeted senators, the report said. The effort failed, however. On July 9 on a key procedural vote, senators voted 60-39 in favor of the Yucca Mountain project. Nevada's fight has now moved into the legal and licensing arenas. The report shows that the biggest single expense was television advertising at $1.1 million. The money was spent in states where Nevada officials thought votes could be swayed, including Utah, Wyoming, Vermont, Iowa and Georgia, among others. The report shows that $70,000 was spent on television in Vermont, for example. Just under $100,000 was spent in Wyoming. The television money was overseen by consultants hired by Nevada Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev. The entire $1.1 million in state money was spent directly on the television advertising, Loux said. Other efforts to sway votes, including an Internet-based education campaign, was overseen by Brown &Partners of Las Vegas, which had contracted with the state Agency for Nuclear Projects. The company's management fee is listed as $62,500. The Internet campaign and related World Wide Web programs, handled for Brown by Issue Dynamics Inc., cost $688,000, according to the report. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which carried mock casks across the nation's highways to draw attention to the dangers of transporting nuclear waste, was paid $128,000 for its efforts. Another $560,000 was spent on newspaper advertising in various states, and $50,000 was spent on direct mail, including a Yucca Mountain press kit, which cost $17,475. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 Stephens Media ***************************************************************** 18 OP: No excuses for dumping the nuclear waste on Nevada Las Vegas SUN: Where I Stand -- Mike O'Callaghan: October 11, 2002 Mike O'Callaghan is the Las Vegas Sun executive editor and a columnist for the Henderson Home News, where this column first appeared. ••• Dog bite me once. Shame on dog. Dog bite me twice. Shame on me. President George W. Bush was sold by the Republican Party as the man who would be fair and only use approved science in determining Yucca Mountain's suitability for holding the nuke waste produced by energy corporations. That was in 2000, when then Gov. Bush of Texas was trying to become, like his father, an occupant of the White House. It worked and Nevada's four electoral votes were the margin that allowed him, despite getting fewer votes cast nationally, to become president and push nuke waste down the throats of Nevadans. So why bring it up now? Because possible candidates are already jockeying to run for the presidency in 2004. Among the Democrats is a very charming, bright and highly respected senator from North Carolina. Many political writers have identified him as a man who is talented and knows how to campaign. John Edwards calls himself the "people's senator" and says he is an independent voice for North Carolina. Edwards may sound like he is an ideal person to occupy the White House. There's no doubt that he represents his state with great skill in Washington. Yes, he loves North Carolina but, no matter what he may tell us in his campaign for the White House, he doesn't give a damn about Nevada. He proved that when he supported Bush by voting to send us nuke waste. We already have too many people running around the Silver State saying they voted for Bush and support his GOP appointees, but they are against putting nuke waste in Yucca Mountain. I'm not buying into that nonsense and lack of reasoning. There can be no rational excuses given by Nevada Democrats for supporting Edwards or any other Democrat who voted in support of dumping in Yucca Mountain. Please don't tell me that if it had been a close vote Edwards would have voted against dumping on us. He followed the lead of large energy corporations and a president who, along with his campaign staff, just flat out lied to Nevadans in 2000. Our president has already bitten us and there is no good reason I can think of that would justify a Democrat like Edwards heading up a ticket to oppose his re-election. The senator has also had his bite out of our posteriors and he shouldn't be allowed a second mouthful. Of course, there are several highly qualified members of Congress who did vote to protect Nevada and could be on the ticket in 2004. There is also one member of Congress who has received contributions from me for several campaigns. Our relationship had little to do with politics but because of common experiences in life and mutual friends. At least he's not thinking about running for president, but I am sure about not sending money for his next campaign. Yes, he also voted with the majority sending deadly nuke waste into the lives of my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. Shame on him. You may believe I'm suffering from Irish amnesia, which allows a person to forget everything but his enemies. You may be correct, but treating my family and fellow Nevadans to centuries of deadly waste isn't something any of us will be able to forget. Nor should we forget the people who determined that it be foisted on us. Dog bite me once. Shame on dog. Dog bite me twice. Shame on me. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 19 Goshutes Feared Two Savage Enemies: Starvation, and the White Man The Salt Lake Tribune -- Sunday, October 13, 2002 BY WILL BAGLEY Historian Milton Hunter claimed the first colonists of Tooele Valley's lush grasslands "had almost continuous trouble with the Indians." Hunter blamed "very aggressive" natives for stealing cattle and claimed they were "plotting" to "run the first few settlers out." Like much of what Hunter wrote, the claim the Kusiutta -- the Goshutes -- were "in a position and frame of mind" to massacre the Mormons is malarkey. (The great scholar Herbert Bolton once said Hunter was the worst student he ever had.) The Kusiutta were not formidable warriors and feared the well-armed whites almost as much as they dreaded their most ancient enemy, starvation. "Do we wish the Indians any evil?" Brigham Young asked as he struggled to find a just way to deal with Utah's tribes. "No, we would do them good for they are human beings." But he warned Utah's Indian leaders in May 1850, "We cannot live with bad Indians." Utah's natives were "doing no good here to themselves or anybody else," Young, as governor, complained. There was nothing in Utah but "naked rocks and soil, naked Indians and wolves" who were "annoying, and destructive to property and peace." The Mormons were "trying to shoot, trap and poison the wolves," and in 1850 Young asked the federal government to remove all the Indians from the territory. The U.S. government did nothing, but in June 1851 militia Captain William McBride led the third "Tooele Expedition" west into Kusiutta country. His 55 men spent four frustrating days chasing Indians who had stolen 15 head of cattle and horses. After three days, the soldiers spotted nine Indians, who vanished into the brush. Tracked to a mountaintop, these fearsome warriors fired one shot and disappeared. Every time the soldiers spotted Indians, they "had principally relocated" before they could catch them. Soon McBride's men were "melted down" and fainting from exhaustion. At last they found the Indian camp and the cattle "butchered recently and concealed in the cedars." McBride reported they "burned everything we could find, including the meat." Then McBride crossed the line dividing legitimate (if brutal) military actions from genocide. "We wish you without a moment's hesitation to send us about a pound of arsenic we want to give the Indians' well a flavour," McBride wrote. "A little strychnine would be of fine service, and serve instead of salt, to their too-fresh meat." His report ended with a three-line appeal: Don't forget the arsenic! Don't forget the spade and arsenic! Don't forget the spade, strychnine and arsenic! This may not prove territorial officers poisoned Goshutes, but journals reveal Utah's Indians were convinced Mormons used poison to try to exterminate them. Despite such war crimes, the Kusiutta survived. Today, as the sovereign Goshute Nation, they have at last found a way to profit from the desolate 18,000-acre Skull Valley Reservation created in 1918. The state has designated the West Desert a waste zone, but won't tolerate an Indian casino, so the tribe must, as the state Web site notes, "rely on economic development programs which are consistent with the numerous waste, production and testing facilities" surrounding the Rez. The West Desert is littered with poison gas, toxic waste, unexploded bombs and "low-level" nuclear waste, generating millions in profits for businesses and campaign contributions for legislators. The Goshute Nation believes it has found a way to bring its people a better life. Will Bagley found Capt. William McBride's June 14, 1851, report at Utah State Archives. © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on Utah OnLine is ***************************************************************** 20 Congress Authorizes Bush to Attack Iraq Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 12:06:36 -0500 (CDT) Rebound Indicates U.N. Vote Irrelevant -- Oil is Key. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/101102_congress_auth_bush.html .. -- You received this message because you are a subscriber to From The Wilderness Publications. http://www.copvcia.com "A Nonpartisan, Non-sectarian, MAP from the Here That Is, Into the Tomorrow of Our Own Making." copyright (c) 2002 From The Wilderness. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 The Sunflower October 2002 (No. 65) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 12:21:24 -0500 (CDT) The Sunflower Online monthly newsletter of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation October 2002 (No. 65) The Sunflower is a monthly e-newsletter providing educational information on nuclear weapons abolition and other issues relating to global security. Back issues are available at http://www.wagingpeace.org/sf/backissues.html. I N T H I S I S S U E PERSPECTIVE/ACTION NUCLEAR SECURITY MISSILES & MISSILE DEFENSE NUCLEAR MATTERS NUCLEAR WASTE NUCLEAR INSANITY FOUNDATION NEWS RESOURCES QUOTABLE ***************************** PERSPECTIVE/ACTION ***************************** Choose Hope and Change the World By David Krieger The political leaders of the most powerful nation that the world has ever known are beating on the drums of war, as they pursue perpetual war against terrorism, against the Taliban and now against Iraq. These men, flush with power, seek regime change in Iraq. They have decided that it is time that Saddam must go, regardless of the cost in lives of Iraqi civilians and of young Americans who will be sent to fight and die. If the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team has its way, we Americans will see the face of Saddam on every Iraqi man, woman and child. They will become our targets, the collateral damage of the bombs we drop from 30,000 feet. They will serve as both the enemy and those we liberate with our bombs. They will be the victims of our arrogance. Their deaths and injuries will be the cause of the next cadres of terrorists who rise up after we have injured and killed their loved ones and destroyed their homes and families. The new terrorists who are created by this war will make us the victims of the hubris of our political leaders. War no longer has a place on our planet, and we must stop preparing for war. We must stop squandering our resources on tools of destruction. We must demand that the $850 billion now spent on the worlds military forces be spent instead on meeting human needs. If human needs are met and principles of justice among all peoples are adhered to, there will be no need for war, and the need for defense will atrophy. Write to the President and to your Congressional representatives today, and tell them that war against Iraq is an unacceptable solution and that they must find peaceful means through the United Nations and international law to end our impasse with Iraq so that innocent Iraqis and Americans will not be killed and more terrorists will not be created. Send more letters to your newspapers and talk about this with your friends. You can find a sample letter and contact information on the Foundations website at http://www.wagingpeace.org/new/getinvolved/index.htm. United Nations Security Council Resolutions Currently Being Violated by Countries Other than Iraq By Stephen Zunes In its effort to justify its planned invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has emphasized the importance of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. However, in addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 91 Security Council resolutions that are also currently being violated by countries other than Iraq. This revealing list of violations raises serious questions regarding the Bush administration's insistence that it is motivated by a duty to preserve the credibility of the United Nations, particularly since the vast majority of the governments violating UN Security Council resolutions are close allies of the United States. (Stephen Zunes is a University of San Francisco professor and Middle East editor of Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org.) Read the article in its entirety online at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0210unres.html The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has produced a briefing on Iraq which can be viewed online at http://www.cnduk.org/briefing/iraq.htm ACTION The Bush administration's push to wage war on Iraq must be actively opposed. A military invasion of Iraq is illegal under international law, unnecessary given the diplomatic alternatives, and against the best interests of US and global security. War will result in the deaths of young American men and women and Iraqi civilians, including innocent children. US citizens and individuals from the international community must make their voices heard in opposition to a war against Iraq. A vote on the war resolution is expected in the US House of Representatives Thursday October 10, and in the US Senate by late Thursday or Friday. Though Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) made a commendable effort to delay the vote in the Senate, his attempts were unfortunately defeated. Please contact your representative and senators and urge them to vote against the war resolution. 1. Call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-225-3121 and have them connect you to your senator's or representative's office. 2. Tell the office staffer that you urge your senator or representative to oppose the war resolution. Remember, the actions of members of Congress like Senator Byrd indicate that your voices are being heard. If you are not a US citizen your actions are still important. 1. Tell your national government not to support US aggression against Iraq. 2. Write a letter to US President Bush telling him that you oppose a US war on Iraq and send it to The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500, The United States. Send a copy of this letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell at U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520 ************************** NUCLEAR SECURITY ************************** Cuba to Sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Cuba announced on 14 September that it would sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) as a contribution to peace in the post-September 11 world. Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque said his country had not signed the treaty before because it preserved a club of nuclear powers to exist with no commitment to disarmament. Roque stated, "As a sign of the clear political will of the Cuban government and its commitment to a effective process of disarmament that guarantees world peace, our country has decided to adhere to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Cuba also announced it will ratify the Latin American and Caribbean nuclear free zone agreement, known as the Treaty of Tlatelolco. According to Roque, although Cuba signed the treaty in 1995, it has not ratified it due to the hostility of the US, the hemisphere's only nuclear power. Cuba has offered to cooperate on terrorism with the US since the events of September 11, 2001. However, Roque said Washington had ignored its proposals. The US has enforced economic sanctions against Cuba for four decades and keeps Havana on a list of states that sponsor terrorism, along with Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Syria and North Korea. Roque said that Cuba firmly opposed what now seems to be an "inevitable" war against Iraq and warned that the United Nations would lose credibility if the United States imposed such a war on the UN Security Council. Roque said it would mean "the birth of a century of unilateralism and the forced retirement of the United Nations. (source: Reuters; 14 September 2002) Bush Outlines Doctrine of Striking First On 20 September, the Bush administration published its first comprehensive rationale for shifting American military strategy toward pre-emptive action against hostile states and terrorist groups developing weapons of mass destruction. The strategy document also states for the first time that the US will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged the way it was during the Cold War. The 33-page document, entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States," is one that every president is required to submit to Congress. It is the first comprehensive explanation of the administration's foreign policy, from defense strategy to global warming. The document undermines the Nonproliferation Treaty in favor of a doctrine of "counterproliferation," in reference to everything from missile defense to forcibly dismantling weapons or their components. The document also declares that the strategies of containment and deterrence, cornerstones of American policy since the 1940's, are all but dead. According to the document, there is no way in this changed world to deter those who "hate the United States and everything for which it stands." One of the most striking statements in the document is "that the president has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago." The document continues, Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States." Administration officials who worked on the strategy for months call the document a maturation and an explanation of Mr. Bush's vision for the exercise of America power after 20 months in office, integrating the military, economic and moral levers he holds. The document argues that while the United States will seek allies in the battle against terrorism, "we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively." The new document celebrates President Bushs decision last year to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty because it impeded American efforts to build a missile defense system. It also claims that nonproliferation agreements have failed to prevent Iran, North Korea, Iraq and other countries from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, and says that the United States will never subject its citizens to the newly created International Criminal Court, "whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans." (source: New York Times; 19 September 2002) Russia Proposes Beginning Talks on Missile Defense and Strategic Reductions In a statement issued on 25 September, Russia proposed that Russian-US working parties on missile defense and strategic offensive arms reductions hold meetings in Moscow in late October or early November. The working parties were set up during the visit of Russian Foreign and Defense Ministers Igor Ivanov and Sergei Ivanov to Washington in September. According to the statement, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Yakovenko also proposed that Moscow and Washington begin talks on military activities in space, although he did specify a date for such talks. (source: AFP; 25 September 2002) Holdout Nations Urged to Ratify CTBT On 14 September, eighteen nations urged holdout governments including the US, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), a treaty they said was vital to ensuring world peace and security. The CTBT was opened for signature in 1996. Since then, 165 states have signed it and 93 of those have ratified it. However, before it can enter into force, it must be ratified by 44 states deemed nuclear weapons-capable. To date, 31 of those 44, including France, Russia and the UK, have signed and ratified the treaty, but to enter into force, it must be ratified by 13 more states. In a statement issued after a meeting of foreign ministers, the 18 governments stated, The prevention of the proliferation of materials, technologies and knowledge which can be used for weapons of mass destruction is one of the most important challenges the world is facing today. We affirm that the CTBT has an essential role to play in strengthening global peace and security. This role should be recognized by all of us. Among the 18 governments meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly were Australia, France, Japan, Jordan, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Peru, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, and the UK. The US signed but turned its back on the CTBT, claiming that it could threaten the safety of US and Russian nuclear arsenals. Some aides to President Bush have gone so far as to say that the reliability and safety of nuclear weapons can not be assured without testing. India and Pakistan, which have been on the brink of war for the last few years, and North Korea have neither signed nor ratified the treaty. China has also signed but not ratified the treaty. Algeria, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel and Vietnam have also signed but not ratified the pact. In remarks to the General Assembly, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov urged governments to universalize the CTBT, arguing the risk of nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists multiplies the destructive potential of international terrorism. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said Japan intended to ask the assembly to adopt a resolution laying out a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons and would also continue to press for the CTBT to enter into force. (source: Reuters; 14 September 2002) *************************************** MISSILES & MISSILE DEFENSE *************************************** Iran Successfully Test Fires Missile On 6 September, Iran successfully test fired the Fateh 110 A, a new ballistic missile that experts say might be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. State-run television reports called the missile "one the most accurate surface-to-surface missiles manufactured in the world." No details were given on when or where in Iran the test was conducted nor was the missile's range revealed. Inaugurating the production of the new missile, Defense Minister Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani, described Iran's missile program as a "deterrent" aimed at "bringing the security of Iran's borders to a maximum level." According to Doug Richardson, editor of the authoritative Jane's Missiles and Rockets, the Fateh 110 A missile may be based on the Chinese DF-11 A missile, which has a range of 186 to 248 miles and is capable of carrying nuclear warheads. If that range is accurate, Iran would be able to fire the new missile well within the borders of Iraq, Turkey and Afghanistan, but not Israel. Iran has already built a number of missiles, including the Shahab-3 which was first tested in 1998 and has a range of 810 miles, capable of reaching Israel and U.S troops stationed in the region. The Shahab-3 is based on the North Korean No Dong missile. Iran is believed to have received missile technology from Russia, China and North Korea, but the Tehran government has denied this assertion. (source: AP; 6 September 2002) Pakistan Conducts Missile Test Still locked in a military stand-off with India, Pakistan announced that it successfully test-fired a medium-range ballistic missile on 4 and 8 October. Analysts said the test was partly a message that Pakistan's military was capable of defending the country at a time of increased tension with India. The missile, named Hatf-IV (Shaheen-1), has a range of 430 miles and can carry a 2,200 lb warhead. Tension between the nuclear-armed rivals rose again in recent weeks as India holds its own state elections in the disputed region of Kashmir. Pakistan and India have amassed some million troops along their border since an attack on India's parliament last December that New Delhi blamed on Pakistan-backed militants. The two countries came close to war in June after an attack on an army camp in Kashmir, the disputed region over which they have fought two of their three wars. (source: Reuters; 4 & 8 October 2002) India Test-Fires Trident Surface-to-Air Missile On 24 September, India successfully test-fired its most sophisticated short-range missile, the Trishul, from a missile range in the eastern state of Orissa on the country's east coast. The Trishul, which means Trident, is an indigenously developed surface-to-air missile and was developed by the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) for the Indian military. The missile has a nine kilometer (5.58 mile) range and can carry a 15 kilogram (33 pound) warhead. India's tank-busting Nag missile is in its final stage of development while anti-aircraft Akash (Sky) and Trishul missiles are being flight-tested. India has built an array of ballistic missiles, such as Prithvi (Earth) and Agni (Fire), which can carry nuclear warheads to targets ranging from 250 to 2,500 kilometres (155 to 1,550 miles). India is also believed to be secretly developing the Sagarika (Oceanic), a longer-range cruise missile that can be fired from submarines to strike land and ocean-based targets with thermo-nuclear warheads. (source: AFP; 24 September 2002) US Army Awards $626 Million Contract for Missile Site Kwajalein Range Services, a new company formed by Bechtel Corp. and Lockheed Martin, was awarded a $626 million contract for the Pacific site where they operate the Kwajalein Atoll-Ronald Reagan Test Site. The Army Space and Missile Defense Command conducts missile tests at the atoll located in the Marshall Islands. The four-year contract, announced on 25 September, could be worth as much as $2.5 billion if extended to its maximum length of 15 years. Kwajalein Range Services will continue to operate the Kwajalein Atoll-Reagan Test Site, and some 2,600 contractors will provide everything from air transportation to garbage pickup for the atoll, where about 100 Army personnel are based. Missile interceptors are fired from the atoll at target missiles launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Raytheon Co. previously operated the Kwajalein facility. (source: AFP; 25 September 2002) ************************* NUCLEAR MATTERS ************************* Russian Legislator Raises Concerns About Osmium-187 Smuggling On 12 September, a Russian legislator warned of an upsurge in illicit trafficking of osmium-187, which he said could be used in nuclear terrorism. However, some international nuclear experts have dismissed osmium, a member of the platinum metals group, as useful only to con artists eager to make a quick buck. Two plants in the former Soviet Union mine osmium: Norilsk Nickel, in Russia's Arctic North, and the Kazakhmys plant in the Central Asian nation of Kazakhstan. Viktor Ilyukhin, a Communist member of the Duma, Russia's lower house of parliament, stated the Kazakh plant had become "one of the biggest suppliers of osmium on the black market." He and a group of experts said that because it is so compact and hard to detect it makes a perfect material for terrorists, and he suggested that a Russian company take over Kazakhmys to ensure better monitoring of its activities. Russian security services seized osmium-187 earlier this year from would-be sellers in three Russian cities--Moscow, St. Petersburg and Volgograd. According to Ilyukhin, osmium peddlers traveled from Kazakhstan to Chechnya via Moscow in mid-July seeking buyers. While the isotope is very expensive, costing some $200,000 a gram (0.035 ounce), according to experts it is "politically accessible. Osmium is also not on the list of substances banned under international nuclear nonproliferation agreements. That may be due to the fact that, according to international experts, it has no nuclear applications. George Anzelon, who runs the illicit trafficking database at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, stated, It has no fission properties for use in a nuclear explosion, so there's no obvious reason why osmium-187 ever should have become this legendary scam material that it has become. (source: AP; 12 September 2002) ********************** NUCLEAR WASTE ********************** Russia Pledges to Tackle Nuclear Waste, Solutions Remain Unclear Russian authorities have pledged to build new storage facilities to tackle the country's nuclear waste mess and import waste from overseas. On 17 September, Russia's Minister of Atomic Energy Alexander Rumyantsev was quoted by the official RIA news agency as saying that Russia has started construction of a new waste storage facility with a capacity of 33,000 tons. Although Rumyantsev did not reveal the location of the new storage facility, there is speculation that it is in the Krasnoyarsk region of Siberia and that it is being built as an extension of existing major facilities. Russia's largest waste storage facility, Krasnoyarsk-26, has only about 3,000 tons of unused capacity. Minatom, Russia's Atomic Energy Ministry, wants to permit other countries to pay to send more than 10,000 tons of their radioactive waste for reprocessing and storage in Russia. On October 25 Viktor Kuznetsov, Russias top nuclear safety inspector in the early 1990s, urged the government to suspend imports of spent nuclear fuel from abroad citing security deficiencies at existing facilities. Moreover, activists within Russia, including Russias progressive party, Yabloko, have actively opposed importing nuclear spent fuel since legislation allowing such imports was passed in July 2001. Public opinion polls clearly demonstrate that Russians oppose the importation of nuclear waste due to environmental, proliferation, and security concerns. Russia faces immense challenges in dealing with its post-Soviet nuclear legacy, notably rusting nuclear submarines. Minatom announced that the Russian navy has decommissioned a total of 189 nuclear submarines, but 126 are still waiting to be scrapped. Russia's Far Eastern regions face particularly serious nuclear waste problems. The Pacific Fleet's 75 decommissioned nuclear submarines are still stranded in harbors. 45 of those are waiting for nuclear fuel to be unloaded from their reactors. The greatest source of danger has been reported from the submarine PM-32, located in a Kamchatka harbor. PM-32 is being used as an interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel from other submarines. This year, Navy experts are expected to unload spent nuclear fuel from 20 nuclear submarines and completely dismantle 17 of them. On 17 September, Russia's Deputy Nuclear Energy Minister Valery Lebedev announced at an international conference on nuclear security in Vladivostok that the Pacific Fleet's three decommissioned nuclear submarines are so dangerous that nuclear fuel cannot be unloaded from their reactors. According to Lebedev, a sarcophagus is to be built in 2003 for two of these subs in Razboinik Bay at an estimated cost of $18 million. In March, Russian media alleged that a decommissioned nuclear submarine had sunk in Krasheninnikov Bay on Kamchatka Peninsula in Russia's Far East. Russian naval officials dismissed the claims, although they conceded that such incidents had taken place in 1997 and 1999. Viktor Akhunov, head of the ecology and decommissioning department at Minatom, conceded in September that the rusting hulls of 39 nuclear vessels pose the greatest danger to the environment in the Arctic. Since 1994, a total of 29 trainloads of nuclear waste have been brought from emergency storage in Andreyev Guba on the Kola Peninsula to the Mayak reprocessing facility near Chelyabinsk. Waste from some 100 reactors is being temporarily stored in Andreyev Guba. All the waste is due to be removed from the Kola region by 2007. (source: Environmental News Service; 19 September 2002, AP; 26 September 2002) ************************* NUCLEAR INSANITY ************************* Mistaken Nuclear Weapons Scare in Turkey On 1 October, scientists at Turkey's Nuclear Research and Training Center said the substance at the center of a nuclear weapons scare was not uranium, not radioactive and that the material, seized in the south of Turkey, posed no threat. Turkish police claimed they had seized 33 lbs of weapons-grade uranium in a taxi about 155 miles from the border with Iraq, facing possible US military action over its alleged program of weapons of mass destruction. Officials later revised the amount, saying it had in fact been about five ounces. The difference was explained by the weight of the metal container holding the material. Suspicions were aroused by the words "primarily youranuom" written on the outside of a metal tube containing a sandy powder stored in a glass vial. According to Guler Koksal, director of the research facility, "It is a powder of zinc, manganese, iron and zirconium. It is not radioactive, it is not chemical and it is not explosive. It doesn't mean anything." Koksal called it "a very big mistake" for officials to have declared the substance weapons-grade uranium without proper analysis. (source: Reuters; 1 October 20002) US Conducts 18th Subcritical Nuclear Test The National Nuclear Security Agency carried out its 18th subcritical nuclear test, code-named "Rocco," at the Nevada Test Site on 26 September. Subcritical nuclear tests are not considered full nuclear tests because they do not achieve a self-sustained chain reaction. However, the tests do involve high explosives blown up with fissile material (usually plutonium). Sophisticated equipment records data from the test that is later fed into computers. Although not full nuclear weapons tests, subcritical testing violates the heart and spirit of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The US and Russia claim that subcritical tests are needed to maintain the safety and reliability of their nuclear stockpiles. For more information about US subcritical nuclear testing, visit http://www.nuclearfiles.org/articles/2002/020305ongsubcrittesting.htm. ************************ NUCLEAR ENERGY ************************ US Nuclear Guards Overworked and Under-trained According to a study released by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), guards at the 103 US nuclear power plants are overworked, under-trained and outgunned, and some of them doubt they could repel a terrorist attack. Interviews with 22 guards at 13 US nuclear power plants revealed many had doubts about preparedness and training. POGO said it found nuclear plant owners have ordered only minimal increases in the number of guards, and are relying heavily on overtime for existing guards rather than hiring new ones. Some guards interviewed by POGO said they worked 12-hour shifts for up to six consecutive days. According to the study, most guards interviewed believe that they are still below adequate levels to defeat a real terrorist attack. One guard stated in an interview, If an attack took place, most of the guards would run like hell. Guards also said they were plagued by fatigue during long and tedious night shifts. Most guards interviewed said they practice firing their weapons only once or twice a year during annual qualification tests, far less than the time necessary to become and remain proficient. Guards also told POGO they did not feel adequately equipped to deal with attackers. Many guards have only shotguns while attackers would likely be armed with sophisticated assault rifles, grenades and automatic weapons. Some legislators have sought to impose tougher security at nuclear power plants. Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) stated, Nuclear power plants are at the very top of the target list and their security must be permanently upgraded. For more information or to read the report, visit http://www.pogo.org ***************************************************************** 22 The Lowest-Tech Atom Bomb Technology Review - Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Technology for Presidents By Richard A. Muller October 11, 2002 What Saddam still needs for nukes. Saddam Hussein had us completely fooled, once. Prior to Desert Storm in 1991, we had monitored and embargoed his importation of high tech centrifuge and laser equipment that could be used to make highly-enriched uranium (HEU). material that—once you have it—makes building an atomic bomb easy. After Saddam’s defeat, inspectors found that he had spent an estimated $8 billion building calutrons, ancient devices (from the 1940s) that Ernest O. Lawrence had used to make HEU for the Hiroshima bomb. (See “Springtime, Taxes and the Attack on Iraq,” technologyreview.com, Feb. 7, 2002). Nobody had anticipated that Saddam would use such a low-tech approach. We won’t be fooled again. U.N. weapons inspectors, if they are ever readmitted to Iraq, will search specifically for evidence of calutron construction. A calutron is a magnetic separator that makes HEU by taking raw or partially-purified uranium and concentrating the rare and more easily fissionable isotope U-235, which makes up only 0.7% of natural uranium. For a uranium bomb, this separation is the hard part; the weapon design is easy. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, 25 kilograms is a “significant amount” of HEU—an amount, they say, “in respect of which the possibility of manufacturing a nuclear explosive cannot be excluded.” If Saddam has this much HEU, he essentially has a nuclear weapon. It takes nearly two tons of uranium ore, run efficiently through calutrons, to separate 25 kilograms of HEU. Most analysts believe it unlikely that Saddam has enriched this much uranium. When his previous calutrons were discovered and destroyed, they hadn’t even been finished. Thus, he probably doesn’t have sufficient HEU—yet—for a nuclear weapon. Unless he is using an even lower tech approach: smuggling. In 1996, Swiss police in Zurich arrested a Turkish national and confiscated 12g of HEU. They determined that the material had been obtained in either Kazakhstan or Russia. The trail was hot, and four days later Turkish police arrested the remainder of the smuggling ring, with 1.2 kilograms of HEU in their possession. Why worry? A kilogram is not a significant amount. Even smugglers need a supplier. Is there reason to think that a substantial quantity of HEU is available? Consider what we learned in Kazakhstan. After the Soviet breakup, a large amount of HEU was left in the republic. To qualify for the benefits of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/] , the government of Kazakhstan gave its stockpile to Russia for dilution and safekeeping in 1995. A year later, much to their embarrassment, the Kazakhstanis reported the discovery of another 205 kilograms of HEU. It had never been listed as missing, and no one was looking for it; it just turned up. The bookkeeping of the former Soviet states makes Enron’s accounting look scrupulous. How much more HEU is still out there, undocumented? Nobody knows. That’s why we worry. If you have your hands on a few grams of U-235, then Saddam is almost certainly your best customer. Assuming he had spent $8 billion on calutrons to try to produce 25 kilograms, then his cost was $320 million per kilogram. That is over 12 times the market value of gem-quality diamonds. In November 2001, police in Istanbul seized about one kilogram of HEU that smugglers tried to sell to undercover agents for $750,000. Why were the smugglers asking for so little? Maybe they didn’t know their own worth. Or—here’s a chilling thought—maybe there is competition, and it is a buyer’s market. ***************************************************************** 23 Soviet submariner 'saved world' By Matthew Hay Brown | Sentinel Staff Writer Posted October 12, 2002 (HILDA M. PEREZ/ORLANDO SENTINEL) Oct 11, 2002 HAVANA -- At the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, a Soviet submarine commander readied a nuclear strike on a United States destroyer, and another officer began assembling the weapon, according to papers released Friday. It was only the intervention of a third officer that stopped an attack that almost certainly would have led to an annihilating retaliation by U.S. forces. The little-known incident, detailed publicly Friday at a conference of U.S., Soviet and Cuban officials who were involved in the 1962 crisis, offered a chilling glimpse of how close the superpowers came to a nuclear exchange during the most dangerous confrontation of the Cold War. "The sound bite here is that a guy named Arkhipov saved the world," said Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive. The Oct. 14, 1962, discovery of Soviet missile bases on this Caribbean island 90 miles from Florida triggered a two-week standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union that brought the world to the edge of disaster. President Kennedy ordered a naval blockade, readied forces for an attack, and demanded that Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev withdraw the missiles. The world watched and waited as Soviet ships steamed toward the U.S. line. On Oct. 27, U.S. destroyers came upon a Soviet B-59 submarine, one of four in the area, and began dropping signal charges to force it to surface. Vadim Pavlovich Orlov, an intelligence officer aboard the submarine, likened the impact of the charges to "sitting in a metal barrel, which somebody is constantly blasting with a sledgehammer." Ships' logs from the USS Beale and the USS Cony released Friday confirmed the bombardment. As the oxygen supply in the B-59 thinned and temperatures rose to 120 degrees, some sailors lost consciousness. "One of the duty officers fainted and fell down," Orlov said in a statement distributed at the conference. "Then another one followed, then the third one. They were falling like dominoes. But we were still holding on, trying to escape. We were suffering like this for about four hours." After a hit by a "practical depth bomb," Orlov said, submarine commander Valentin Grigorievich Savitsky thought a war might have begun. Unable to communicate with the Soviet general staff, he ordered the officer assigned to the nuclear-tipped torpedo to assemble it and prepare it to be fired. But 2nd Capt. Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov intervened, telling Savitsky that the conditions for firing the torpedo -- a rupture of the hull -- had not been achieved. Savitsky reversed his order and the submarine surfaced. Former Navy Lt. J.W. Peterson, who kept the log aboard the Beale, said the ship's officers did not know the submarine they were bombarding was armed with a nuclear weapon. The missile crisis was defused the next day when Khrushchev agreed to withdraw the Soviet weapons from Cuba in exchange for a public pledge by Kennedy not to invade the island and a secret promise to pull U.S. missiles out of Turkey. Veterans from all sides of the confrontation, including Cuban President Fidel Castro, former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and former Soviet KGB agent Nikolai Leonov, gathered in Havana on Friday to open a two-day conference and release several declassified documents. Conference organizers said understanding the crisis could help future leaders avoid nuclear war. "The Crisis of October has been considered by many as the most dramatic of the so-called Cold War and perhaps of all international relations in contemporary history," said Cuban Vice President Jose Ramon Fernandez, who was a military commander at the time. McNamara credited Castro, Kennedy and Khrushchev with averting a nuclear disaster. "For many years, I considered the Cuban Missile Crisis to be the best-managed foreign-policy crisis of the last 50 years," he said. "But at the end, events were slipping out of control on all sides. We averted nuclear war by the narrowest of margins." Castro proposed reuniting the conference participants every 10 years. McNamara said he didn't know how many of the former officials, most of them now in their 70s or 80s, would make the next one. The comment drew a smile from the Cuban leader. /Matthew Hay Brown can be reached at 787-729-9072 or mhbrown@tribune.com. Copyright © 2002, Orlando Sentinel ***************************************************************** 24 Russia May Support New U.N. Efforts on Iraq The New York Times *October 12, 2002* *By STEVEN LEE MYERS* MOSCOW, Oct. 11 ? President Vladimir V. Putin said today that Russia was prepared to support new United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iraq, but only to strengthen the work of inspectors searching for its weapons programs and not to authorize the use of military force. Making his most extensive remarks to date on the looming confrontation with Iraq, after meetings here with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, Mr. Putin said the most urgent issue was how to return inspectors to Iraq to verify that country's compliance with its commitments to dismantle nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs. Mr. Putin, like others outside the United States, appears simply to disagree on the urgency of the threat that President Saddam Hussein of Iraq poses, despite impassioned warnings by President Bush and Mr. Blair. Today, he bluntly dismissed recent reports on the subject by Britain and the Central Intelligence Agency as "propaganda" to support already developed positions. "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that would support the existence of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," he said. "And we have not received such information from our partners as yet." Mr. Putin noted that the Iraqi government and the director of the United Nations inspection team had already agreed on new inspections and said that those inspections should begin immediately under existing Council resolutions, though he was open to proposals to strengthen rules governing how the inspectors work. "Russia insists the situation around Iraq should be settled on the basis of U.N. resolutions that were passed before," Mr. Putin said at a news conference with Mr. Blair, who arrived on Thursday evening, accompanied by his wife, Cherie, for a day and a half of talks with Mr. Putin at a hunting lodge north of Moscow. Mr. Putin did not directly address the draft resolution prepared and circulated by the United States and Britain, but only hours after he spoke, a deputy foreign minister, Yuri Y. Fedotov, rejected it out of hand, saying it "cannot be accepted as a basis for a future U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq as it contains clearly unfulfillable demands." Mr. Putin's remarks made it clear that an intensive diplomatic effort ? including Mr. Blair's visit and a telephone call from Mr. Bush on Monday congratulating Mr. Putin on his 50th birthday ? has so far failed to persuade him to accept a tougher resolution warning Iraq of the consequences of noncompliance. "Baghdad has made concessions and agreed to receive a U.N. commission without any conditions," Mr. Putin said, rebuffing the Bush administration's arguments. "Bearing this in mind, we believe that there are no formal and legal reasons for adopting any new U.N. resolution." The hardening of Russia's position came a day after the House and Senate voted to give Mr. Bush the authority to use force in Iraq. That vote was criticized in Russia today as a provocation and a threat to global political and economic stability, underscoring the domestic pressure Mr. Putin faces over the issue. Viktor A. Ozerov, chairman of the defense committee in the upper house of Parliament, said the vote "can be regarded as a challenge to the world community that proves that the United States of America does not pay any attention to the norms of international law." In several weeks of international diplomacy ? and in an unusually broad public debate here in Russia ? the Russians have made it clear that they fear that the Bush administration's campaign to overthrow Mr. Hussein's government could threaten Russia's longstanding political and economic interests in Iraq. Those include $8 billion in Soviet-era debt Iraq owes and other contracts as well as extensive oil projects. A British official described Mr. Blair's talks with Mr. Putin as cordial and productive. But today at the news conference, Mr. Blair acknowledged that he and Mr. Putin had "different perspectives about how sure we can be about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction." Mr. Blair also argued for a unified position on the Security Council, saying that would be the most effective lever against Mr. Hussein. "The stronger and clearer the signal the international community gives," he said, "the less likely conflict will be." Copyright The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 25 Thousands demonstrate in French capital against war on Iraq Anti-war protesters holding a banner reading, "Do not touch Iraq, Justice in Palestine, Stop Bush" march through Paris. /Francois Mori, AP/ AFP - 10/13/2002 PARIS - Thousands demonstrated in Paris Saturday to protest against war on Iraq and pressure France's government to use its veto in United Nations Security Council to restrain Washington. Demonstrators marched through the capital chanting: "No to war against Iraq, no blood for oil" and brandishing slogans reading: "Hands off Iraq - stop Bush." Hundreds also demonstrated in several other French cities including Rennes, Lille, Lyon, Rouen, Bordeaux and Le Havre. Police said the turnout in Paris numbered some 6,000 while organizers, including left-of-center parties and trade unions, estimated a figure of 15,000. "We have come to say no to a war which nothing can justify," said Communist Party leader Robert Hue: "We must do everything to ensure George W. Bush is not supported in his aims". Hue was the Communist Party presidential candidate in this year's election which President Jacques Chirac again won. Hue noted that Chirac's government already had reservations about Washington's position. But Paris had to go much further and use its right of veto as a permanent member of the Security Council, he said. The United States wants the Security Council to pass a single resolution that would threaten Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with military force should he fail to comply with UN weapons inspectors. But France is pushing for a two-stage ultimatum, with a first resolution setting out tough conditions for the return of inspectors, and if necessary, a second that could threaten the use of force in the event of non-compliance. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin on Wednesday reiterated France's opposition to any resolution that would automatically trigger military action should Iraq be judged to be in violation of UN demands. But Noel Mamere, head of the French Greens environmentalist party, told demonstrators here Saturday there must be no ambiguity about France's position. "There must be no war against Iraq even with UN agreement," he insisted. Demonstrators, many carrying Palestinian flags, also protested against Israeli policy and Bush's support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, with slogans denouncing Israeli "impunity and occupation." Meanwhile, some 400 people demonstrated at the southern English city of Plymouth against war on Iraq and also against British nuclear submarines being re-fitted in local dockyards. The protest was organized by Britain's Committee for Nuclear Disarmament (CND.) CND Chairwoman Carol Naughton read out a statement, later submitted to naval authorities, reading: "Nuclear weapons are immoral and illegal. Their development, testing and use have destroyed the lives of four generations already. "We are here to demonstrate our total opposition to nuclear weapons and war on Iraq. © Copyright 2002 AFP ***************************************************************** 26 Kremlin asks: where's your proof on Iraq? Guardian Unlimited | Archive Search On the day Tony Blair arrives in Moscow for crucial talks, the Guardian speaks to Russia's defence minister. Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow Guardian Friday October 11, 2002 The Russian defence minister, Sergei Ivanov, expressed deep unease last night at Washington's failure to provide - even at the highest Kremlin level - conclusive evidence justifying the need for an attack on Iraq. The Kremlin had yet to receive "conclusive data" linking Baghdad to international terrorists or to programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction, he said. Mr Ivanov dismissed speculation that the Bush administration had offered a compensation package for the loss of Russia's multibillion pound economic interests in Iraq in the event of military action. In the first interview a Kremlin minister has given to a western newspaper since the Iraq negotiations began, Mr Ivanov told the Guardian that the greatest threats to US-Russian relations were America's "refusal to take into account the fact that the world is interdependent" and its determination to undertake "unilateral measures that do not resolve problems, but create new and unpredictable ones". Mr Ivanov was dismissive of Anglo-American attempts to negotiate a new UN security council resolution and called for the immediate deployment of weapons inspectors in Iraq. His critical assessment of US policy was made an hour before Tony Blair arrived in Moscow in an attempt to win the Kremlin over to the US-British plans on Iraq, and as Russian officials set out a bullish bargaining position in advance of talks. Mr Ivanov, who is considered President Vladimir Putin's closest confidant, said Russia was still right to have offered its backing to America's war on terror, but that action against Iraq was entirely different. "In the fight against terror in Afghanistan, we were the first to give our clear support to unilateral steps. For us everything was clear about Afghanistan before September 11. The situation is different with Iraq. Generally speaking, the use of blind force without determining wrong from right is extremely inappropriate." He added that despite a year of unprecedented intelligence-sharing between Russia and the west, new information on Iraq had been scant. "We do not have any data about either the financial or material support of the Iraqi leadership for international terrorists," said Mr Ivanov, adding that requests for such data had been made at the highest level. The remarks provide the first indication of Washington's obstinacy in negotiating Russian support, and its refusal to suggest a solution that would protect Russia's trade deals. Mr Ivanov insisted, however, that Russia could not be bought. "It is not a matter of bargaining," he said. "We are sure that military force can be used only after all - I repeat all - political and diplomatic measures have been tried without any result." He stressed that Russia was greatly concerned about the global proliferation of nuclear weapons, adding that states such as Iraq "are closer to Russia's border that those of the UK or US". "But I want to underline that the decisive answer, yes or no, to such a question as 'are there biological or chemical weapons [in Iraq]?' can only be given by an effective inspection. The Russian position about Iraq has been repeated clearly and we feel that there are many UN members that share this position - even the majority." He said that while he took "general declarations" concerning Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction very seriously, including the Blair dossier, "unfortunately, I have not found facts which could prove without doubt the presence [of such arms]". Mr Ivanov is considered to be among the more pro-western members of Mr Putin's inner circle. He speaks fluent English, which he broke into occasionally. He insisted that he was "cautiously optimistic" about Russian-American relations, and that "both sides would aspire to act in agreement with each other on the key problems of security, partnership and economic cooperation". [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 27 Program takes viewers deep into nuclear threat By Hal Boedeker | Sentinel Television Critic Posted October 12, 2002 With a top al-Qaeda expert as the guide, Nuclear Terrorism: Blinding Horizons offers a credible, chilling journey through scenarios many news organizations ignore and many viewers avoid. Peter Bergen, the author of Holy War Inc., examines Osama bin Laden's nuclear plotting and the security lapses at Russian nuclear facilities that terrorists could exploit. "Two important things about al-Qaeda: They're extremely patient," Bergen says in a phone interview. "They took two years to plan Sept. 11. And with this group, all bets are off. They could care less about how many people they kill." The hour program premieres at 8 p.m. Sunday on MSNBC as part of National Geographic Explorer. Bergen's expertise and contacts are the program's chief draws as he travels to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Russia. He traces a mysterious shipment of radioactive materials from Kazakhstan that vanished two years ago in Pakistan, a case that underscores the dangers of nuclear trafficking in Central Asia. Physics Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy raises concerns about Islamic extremists in the Pakistani nuclear program. "We shall be very lucky if we avoid a catastrophe in the next 10 or 20 years," he says. Near Moscow, Bergen meets a desperate engineer who stole weapons-grade material from a research center. The man simply wanted money to fix up his apartment. His heists in the 1990s stopped when police arrested him, but Bergen says today's Russian establishment is reluctant to acknowledge security problems. In the United States, Bergen talks to such experts as former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, former Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia and U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn. All three offer pessimistic observations. "We are truly in a race with terrorists to shut them down before they shut us down," Shays says. "And it's a race right now that I don't think we're winning." Nuclear Terrorism makes so many intriguing points that it's unfortunate the program settles for melodramatic production techniques. Re-enactments, jarring mood music and rumbling narration spoken by Jonathon Bryce detract from the information. In self-important flourishes, the program plays up Bergen as globe-trotting journalist. But the 39-year-old has deservedly won renown as a CNN analyst and a leading expert on al-Qaeda. Born in Minneapolis, Bergen moved to Europe at an early age and received his education in England. His biography notes that he did the first Western television interview with bin Laden, in 1997. Bergen says al-Qaeda has been severely disrupted, and its ability to mount conspiracies has been limited. But he senses the terrorists are moving away from military targets to economic ones. He cites the recent explosion of a French oil tanker off Yemen. "They understand from 9/11 the economic impact is something people focus on," he says. There's no evidence that bin Laden is dead, Bergen says, and he's probably in such poor shape that he's not showing himself. "I believe he's in Afghanistan or northwestern Pakistan," Bergen says. "He knows the area very well. In leaving, he'd reveal himself. From common sense, why would he go anywhere else?" Bergen finished his work on Nuclear Terrorism in August, but he's glad the program is airing now. More people are paying attention, although the program doesn't discuss Iraq. He says the connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda are minimal. "We asked bin Laden what he thought of Saddam Hussein," Bergen says. "He said he's a bad Muslim. Calling someone a bad Muslim is as bad as it gets." President Bush has made "a slight mistake" in trying to link Iraq with the terrorists, he adds, because "the al-Qaeda thing is a red herring that opens him up to criticism." Bergen says the administration's position improves by sticking to one issue and going through the United Nations. The analyst hopes viewers recognize that it's a critical national security issue to help the countries of the former Soviet Union secure their nuclear material. But Bergen, too, sounds pessimistic about nuclear terrorism. "The general public wasn't worried about al-Qaeda until Sept. 11," he says. "This will only become real when it happens, which is unfortunate. . . . I think generally that most experts believe a radiological bomb is something that could be deployed. A crude atomic bomb is not inconceivable." The radiological weapon marries radioactive waste to conventional explosives and would disperse matter over city blocks. On nuclear terrorism, the program quotes a Department of Defense computer program theorizing that an attack on New York could kill 50,000 immediately and several hundred thousand shortly afterward. It's a positive sign that the war in Afghanistan disrupted al-Qaeda's nuclear plans and their program to acquire material, Bergen says. "But we're going to see more of these apocalyptic groups," he says. "The IRA has a more rational form of terrorism. These other people have these suicidal impulses." /Hal Boedeker can be reached at hboedeker@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5756. Copyright © 2002, Orlando Sentinel ***************************************************************** 28 Allard: Staying in touch, making a difference Denver Post.com allard vs. strickland By U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard Sunday, October 13, 2002 - U.S. Senate contenders Wayne Allard and Tom Strickland have pummeled each other incessantly in public debates and dueling drumbeats of negative advertising. As election day nears, the candidates summarize their hopes and fears for their home state. Nothing is more important than staying in touch with the people whom elected officials represent. As a citizen legislator, I made it a priority six years ago to spend time visiting face to face with the people of Colorado. So every year, my wife, Joan, and I have jumped into our pickup and held town meetings in every county in Colorado. After more than 600 town meetings, I am proud to say that, with the help and ideas of the people we have met, we have made a difference for Colorado. I am proud of the work we did with President Bush on improving our education system through the Leave No Child Behind Act. Working together, we fought to lower taxes and keep federal spending in check. We also made great strides in preserving more of our environmental treasures. Working in a bipartisan fashion with local Coloradans, we created the Great Sand Dunes National Park, the Spanish Peaks Wilderness Area and Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. Those of you who know me realize that I believe strongly in keeping decisions at the local level. That's why it is critical to bring all interested parties together to work toward solutions to the problems we face. Many of the great accomplishments in Colorado in the last six years started out as ideas at my town meetings. Whether it was cleaning up the low-level radioactive waste at the Shattuck site in Denver or at the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons site, or dealing with Colorado's affordable housing problem, we rolled up our sleeves and got the job done. Together, we have made a difference. More work lies ahead. Given the threat that America faces from Saddam Hussein and the ongoing war on terrorism, we need to continue standing with President Bush and our military. We need to support the men and women who defend us by improving their pay and providing them with the tools they need to keep America and the world free from terrorism. And make no mistake: We must move forward on missile defense in order to safeguard the American mainland as well as our allies in Europe and elsewhere. We also need to tackle the prescription-drug issue so our seniors can spend more time with their grandkids and less time worrying about how they are going to pay for prescription drugs. It just isn't right that members of Congress get prescription-drug benefits with their health-care plans, but we cannot seem to provide the same coverage to our seniors. It is high time to stop playing politics with the issue and solve it once and for all. Over the summer, Colorado's forests were devastated by wildfires. We need to update our forest policy to allow thinning and other useful measures to reduce the potential fire threat. More importantly, we need to make sure that decisions on forest management are made based on sound science and by the resident forest managers, not by bureaucrats in Wasington, D.C., or the Sierra Club. Colorado is also facing a tough drought. Our farmers are fighting for survival while our population centers are enduring watering bans. In the short term, I have been leading the charge in the Senate to get drought relief passed that would allocate additional emergency money to help our farmers and their families. In the long term, we need to do a better job of keeping Colorado's water in Colorado. Unlike my opponent, I do not support federal reserved water rights that take water from the state and local communities. Finally, we must do more to preserve, protect and defend Social Security. I believe we owe it to today's seniors and future generations to fix Social Security now, not pass the buck for later generations to fix when the only solutions will be drastic tax increases and substantial cuts in benefits. For a majority of seniors today and in the future, Social Security is the only source of retirement income. They didn't or don't have extra money to put in 401(k) plans. The companies they worked for might not have had pension plans. With the increasing cost of health care, college and taxes, many people weren't or aren't able to put a meaningful amount of money in personal savings. Now, my opponent has spent lots of time lately distorting my record on Social Security. So, let me be clear: Nothing will stop us from keeping the promises we have made to our senior citizens. As your senator, I voted to stop the raids on the trust fund, eliminate the earnings limitation and rescind Bill Clinton's tax on benefits. That's my record in the efforts to preserve Social Security. Our work on Social Security isn't done, however, because in roughly a decade, there will be more people receiving benefits than paying into the trust fund. If we want Social Security to be there for today's workers, our kids and grandkids, then we need to stop playing politics and start solving problems. My opponent refuses to tell Coloradans how he'll solve the problem. By his inaction, he supports the "Do Nothing Act" that will result in drastic cuts in benefits to future generations of seniors. My opponent punts by saying he wants a fourth "blue-ribbon commission" to look at the problem. The other three bipartisan commissions, as well as moderates from both parties like John Breaux, D-La., John McCain, R-Ariz., Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., came to the same conclusion that I have: We need to increase the amount of money in the trust fund, and the best way to do that is to get a better rate of return on the money paid to Social Security. Sens. Breaux, Kerrey and Moynihan don't support risky gambles or diversions of money out of the Social Security program, and neither do I. At the end of the day, there are work horses and show horses. As a veterinarian, I know the difference. Working together, we have accomplished a lot for Colorado. More remains to be done. If re-elected, I promise you I will continue to make a difference for Colorado. I respectfully ask for your vote. The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** 29 Renowned anti-nuclear warrior brings a timely message to mountains | NEWS By Asheville Citizen-Times POSTED: Oct. 10, 2002 11:07 p.m. Any writer who's ever doubted the power of fiction to change the world would be inspired anew by reading the beginning of Helen Caldicott's autobiography, published in 1996. "When I was 19," Caldicott writes, "I read a book that changed my life. "It was a novel, barely read these days, called `On the Beach,' by the Australian writer Nevil Shute (later made into a popular film). "It tells the story of the final months in the lives of five people living in a world doomed to be destroyed by radiation after a nuclear war that had begun by accident in the Northern Hemisphere." The novel was set in Melbourne, Australia, where Caldicott grew up, and it haunted her. She had already decided to become a doctor, but after reading "On the Beach,'' she writes that she knew she wouldn't just "go through medical school and settle into a nice, cozy, well-paid niche somewhere, as doctors in Australia were apt to do. I wanted a husband and a family, certainly, but somewhere in me was a conviction that I had other work to do as well. When I read `On the Beach' I started to realize what that work might be." Caldicott went on to become a pediatrician and a mother who was incensed by the radioactive fallout from French nuclear weapons tests that contaminated Australian rain. She ignited a campaign that ultimately led the French government to stop atmospheric weapons tests in the South Pacific. It was the beginning of the crusade that would make her an icon of the anti-nuclear movement of the 1980s. As a young mother, she resigned from the faculty of Harvard Medical School and helped found and was the first president of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Women's Action for Nuclear Disarmament. These two organizations were at the forefront of the nuclear freeze movement. Now a young grandmother, she is still carrying the message about the dangers of the nuclear genie. At 7 tonight, she will deliver the keynote address at a conference titled "Radiation and Health in the Nuclear Heartland" at UNC Asheville's Lipinsky Auditorium. "It is her leadership that led to the popular understanding in the 1980s that no one wins a nuclear war," Mary Olson of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, one of the conference sponsors, says of Caldicott. With plutonium currently being transported along Interstate 40, with the Bush administration advocating the development of limited nuclear weapons and with plans under consideration to convert weapons grade nuclear material into fuel for nuclear power plants - an operation that would take place at the Savannah River nuclear power plant - the sponsors of this weekend's conference have some basis for their claim that the U.S. is on the brink of a nuclear revival and that the southeast is where the revival is happening. With the increased threat of terrorism, there's plenty of cause for worry, especially since Western North Carolina is close enough to several nuclear plants to be dramatically affected should they be attacked or have a catastrophic accident. The conference today and Saturday at UNCA offers an opportunity for Western North Carolinians to learn more about the new nuclear threat and how it could impact our health and that of future generations. Want to go? What: Radiation and Health in the Nuclear Heartland When: 7 p.m. tonight and 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Saturday Where: UNCA, Lipinsky Auditorium tonight and Owen Conference Center, Saturday Cost: $20 to cover lunch and snacks, $10 for students, free if you bring your own lunch and snacks Sponsors: The Environmental Studies Department at UNC Asheville, Physicians for Social Responsibility of WNC, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, the Asheville chapter of Womens International League for Peace and Freedom and the Western North Carolina Peace Coalition. ©2002 ASHEVILLE CITIZEN-TIMES 14 O.HENRY AVE., ASHEVILLE, NC 28801, PHONE: 828-252-5611 ***************************************************************** 30 More Revealed on Cuban Missile Crisis Las Vegas SUN October 12, 2002 By ANITA SNOW ASSOCIATED PRESS HAVANA- Protagonists in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis discovered that events at the height of that Cold War drama may have brought them closer to nuclear war than they originally believed. Newly declassified U.S., Cuban and Soviet documents discussed during a three-day conference that began Friday underscore the danger of a nuclear attack - either accidental or deliberate - that existed during those tense October days. "A real war will begin, in which millions of Americans and Russians will die," Anatoly Dobrynin, the Soviet ambassador to the United States, quoted then-U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy as telling him in a top secret memo, now declassified, on Oct. 27, 1962. "The situation may get out of control, with irreversible consequences," Robert Kennedy warned after an American spy plane was shot down over Cuba and President Kennedy was pressured to order pilots to return fire if fired upon. Also on Oct. 27, 1962, the most dangerous day of the crisis, notes from the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff detail a series of alarming events in addition to the shooting down of the U-2 spy plane. There was a Joint Chiefs' recommendation for an air strike and invasion of Cuba, and reports that Cuban anti-aircraft units were given authority to open fire against "enemy aircraft" starting on Nov. 18. Some of the notes were taken from transcripts of Joint Chiefs meetings in October-November 1962 dealing with the Cuban missile crisis. The documents were declassified under the Freedom of Information Act. Many documents studied during the conference were collected by the National Security Archive, a nonprofit research group at George Washington University in Washington. Archive researchers were also participating in the conference. Cuban President Fidel Castro was participating in the conference's closed door sessions, as were former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and other key advisers in the Kennedy administration. As events began spinning out of control in late October 1962, Castro began expecting a U.S. airstrike on Soviet facilities on the island and was prepared to shoot down American combat aircraft if they invaded Cuba, according to a top secret military directive to Gen. Issa A. Pliyev, head of Soviet forces in Havana. The Soviets were prepared as well. "In case of a strike on our facilities by American aircraft it has been decided to use all available air defense forces," the directive said. A portion of the documents, made available to The Associated Press in Washington, demonstrate that the crisis did not end on Oct. 29, 1962, with the Soviet Union's agreement to remove the offensive weapons, as is widely believed. Weeks after the Soviet Union agreed to pull the missiles from Cuba, Khrushchev worried that an "irrational" Castro would renew tensions with the United States - perhaps even provoke war. Cuba "wants practically to drag us behind it with a leash, and wants to pull us into a war with America by its actions," Khrushchev said in a Nov. 16, 1962, letter to diplomatic aides in Cuba. During conference sessions on Friday, participants also looked at American covert actions following the disastrous CIA-backed invasion of Cuba's Bay of Pigs in April 1961 and how they intensified Cuban fears of a U.S. military attack. The conference took on special relevance as President Bush now ponders a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. The missile crisis began in mid-October 1962 when President Kennedy learned that Cuba had Soviet nuclear missiles capable of reaching the United States. The crisis was defused two weeks later when the Soviet Union agreed to remove the missiles. Former Kennedy aides Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Richard Goodwin and Ted Sorensen are attending the conference, as well as former CIA analyst Dino Brugioni, who interpreted American spy photos of Soviet missiles in Cuba. Conference participants on Sunday will travel to sites related to the crisis, including a missile silo in the western province of Pinar del Rio. On the Net: http://www.gwu.edu/(tilde [http://www.gwu.edu/(tilde] )nsarchiv/nsa/cuba-mis-cri/ All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 31 Iraq Scrambles to Respond to U.S. Las Vegas SUN October 12, 2002 By ELLEN KNICKMEYER ASSOCIATED PRESS BAGHDAD, Iraq- Iraq ordered Parliament into an emergency session Saturday following the passage of a U.S. congressional resolution authorizing force against Saddam Hussein's regime. Iraq gave no immediate explanation for the emergency session, set for late Saturday. But it was widely expected to deliver the Iraqi response to U.S. lawmakers. "America is the one challenging us - it's not us challenging America," Deputy Premier Tariq Aziz said in remarks published Saturday in Iraqi newspapers. "When someone comes to your house and says, 'I'm going to attack you and kill your parents and children' what do you say?" Aziz said from Beirut, Lebanon. "You say, 'I'm willing to defend my land, my money and my house.'" In Baghdad, Iraqi Islamic leaders appealed to the Muslim world Saturday to help Iraq if the United States attacks. "Take the word of Iraq, which already has lost so much flesh and blood to this country: If no one stops it, it will destroy the whole world!" Iraq's Popular Islamic Conference said in a fatwa, or edict, signed by 500 clerics of Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority and Sunni minority. The clerics urged fellow Muslim nations to stage boycotts and protests against the United States, and send volunteers to the fight. The U.S. Congress late Thursday authorized President Bush to use America's military to eradicate any Iraqi programs for biological, chemical or nuclear programs. The United Nations has kept Saddam's regime under sanctions since the end of the Persian Gulf War over its banned weapons programs. Iraq insists it no longer has any of the forbidden weapons. U.N. weapons inspectors, who pulled out of Iraq in 1998 complaining of Iraqi obstruction, could return as soon as Oct. 19 under an Iraqi-U.N. agreement worked out under growing U.S. pressure. The United States and Britain are arguing for tougher ground rules before inspectors return. On Saturday, Iraqi authorities set out with international and Iraqi journalists on Iraq's latest government-guided tour of an alleged weapons site. The site, Al Furat, south of Baghdad, is one of four targeted by the Bush administration as a possible base for Iraqi research and development of nuclear weapons. Bush cited the plants last week in making his case against Iraq to the American people. U.S. intelligence says Iraq has made repeated attempts to smuggle in prohibited gear - aluminum tubing - for the plant. The United States says it suspects Iraq seeks the tubes for centrifuges to enrich uranium to weapons grade. U.N. officials say they caught Iraq trying to hide enriched uranium from them during inspections in the 1990s, and U.S. officials say a lack of adequate uranium has been the main block for Iraq in developing nuclear weapons. Iraq insists it has never had a nuclear weapons program. Iraqi authorities say the Al Furat plant conducts electronics research for civilian purposes only. Iraqi generals say U.N. inspectors and American officials are welcome to inspect the sites themselves. White House officials have dismissed similar tours for the press as a meaningless show. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 32 Film Probes German-Iraq Nuclear Link Today: October 13, 2002 at 10:30:18 PDT By CHARLES J. HANLEY ASSOCIATED PRESS NEW YORK- A new investigative film traces the roots of the Iraq nuclear crisis to links between German industry and Baghdad's bomb builders, and questions the lenient sentence - probation - handed a German engineer for treason in aiding the project. The documentary, "Stealing the Fire," also offers a rare close-up look at a "proliferator," the engineer Karl-Heinz Schaab, who emerges on film as a bland, gray, fastidious 68-year-old technician who protests he's "too small to be turned into a scapegoat for the others." The film, produced and directed by Oscar-winning documentarian John S. Friedman and Eric Nadler, premieres Tuesday at a New York theater. Blueprints and other documents Schaab and associates brought to Iraq in the late 1980s, along with Schaab's own hands-on skills, were a vital boost to Baghdad's development of gas centrifuges - machines whose ultra-fast spinning "enriches" uranium by separating U-235, the stuff of nuclear bombs, from non-fissionable U-238. Much of Iraq's nuclear infrastructure was subsequently wrecked by American and allied bombing in the 1991 Gulf War and in 1998. More was destroyed during U.N. inspections inside Iraq in the 1990s, and Baghdad officials deny they are working on atomic weapons today. But reconnaissance photos released by the Bush administration this week, as it seeks support for a potential war against Iraq, indicate the Iraqis have been rebuilding sites previously used for nuclear development. A newly released U.S. intelligence report says they may have nuclear weapons by 2010. "Stealing the Fire" looks at the source of these capabilities. Iraq was failing with other enrichment technologies when German centrifuge experts Bruno Stemmler and Walter Busse, recruited by a German company, H Metallform, came to Baghdad in 1988 and sold the Iraqis old designs for centrifuges. The next year they brought Schaab, who provided components, technical reports and, most important, a stolen design for an advanced "supercritical" centrifuge. The design, classified secret in Germany, was used in enriching nuclear power fuel at the European government consortium Urenco, for which a small Schaab-owned company worked as a subcontractor. The Iraqis paid $62,000 for the key documents. In an on-film interview, Schaab says that on his last Baghdad visit, in April 1990, he personally helped install Iraq's first test centrifuge. Bomb-making would require thousands of such centrifuges. A German court eventually - on June 29, 1999 - convicted Schaab of treason and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment and a $32,000 fine, but then suspended the prison term because he previously served 15 months in a Brazilian jail. He had fled to Brazil in 1995 after U.N. inspectors uncovered documents in Iraq exposing the German connection. At Germany's request the following year, the Brazilians arrested the fugitive engineer, but freed him when a Brazilian court held that his alleged crime was political and he could not be extradited. In 1998, Schaab returned to Germany anyway, to be with his dying mother and surrender to authorities, apparently assured his cooperation would win him leniency. The light sentence he received raised questions, however, among nonproliferation specialists. American physicist David Albright, who was on the U.N. inspection team, suggested that the German government wanted to minimize public perception of Schaab's crime. "I think they wanted the Schaab story to disappear. It was intensely embarrassing," Albright says in "Stealing the Fire." The film suggests some people wanted Schaab himself to disappear. His lawyers tell the filmmakers that Brazilian authorities had warned them that foreign secret services wanted to kill or kidnap their client, and suggest that the closely timed deaths of associates Stemmler and Busse in the early 1990s may not have been natural, as reported. "Stealing the Fire" leaves such questions unexplored. But it firmly establishes that German companies, more broadly, supplied technology usable in Baghdad's plans. One high-ranking defector from Iraq's nuclear program says Germany was an "open field" for Iraqi ambitions in the 1980s, particularly for purchases from such companies as chemical giant Degussa and its subsidiary Leybold. A top Degussa executive retorts that "by the German laws, there were no illegal deliveries" during this pre-Gulf War period. German export controls, widely regarded as too lax, were toughened after the Gulf War. German industry was not alone, however, in helping develop Iraqi capabilities. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, licensed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential military uses. Schaab "of course did it for the money," says his lawyer Michael Rietz. But the centrifuge expert - described by wife Brigitta as "very quiet, very well-behaved; he doesn't smoke, he doesn't drink" - insists he was focused as much on the technological challenge, and not on illegality and international repercussions. "I stumbled naively into this thing," he says. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 33 Nevada site considered for production of nuclear weapons triggers Las Vegas SUN Today: October 13, 2002 at 14:25:27 PDT ASSOCIATED PRESS LAS VEGAS (AP) - Advocates for bringing a plutonium pit manufacturing plant to the Nevada Test Site call it the most secure of five locations being considered by the federal government to produce the triggers for nuclear weapons. The factory, which the U.S. Department of Energy hopes to open by 2020, would employ about 1,000 people. The Nevada Test Site northwest of Las Vegas; Los Alamos National Laboratory in northern New Mexico; the Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas; the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, N.M.; and South Carolina's Savannah River Site are being considered for a $4.1 billion plant for nuclear weapons cores, called plutonium pits. Troy Wade, chairman of the Nevada Alliance for Defense, Energy and Business, said the trade group is pushing for the factory, which he hopes would benefit the state's economy, university system and other experiments at the Nevada Test Site. "It's high on our priority list because it's the kind of high-tech project that fits the future of the test site," Wade told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Wade said the factory could bring new technology and cutting-edge safety and environmental controls to the test site, which he called the most remote of all locations bidding for the so-called Modern Pit Facility. U.S. pit production operations shut down in 1989 at DOE's Rocky Flats facility near Denver, and no pits have been made since. Los Alamos is developing an interim facility that could make as many as 50 pits a year by 2007. Government officials have said that the nation's aging nuclear weapons stockpile could be jeopardized should their cores not be replaced in coming years. To find out, some government officials have advocated resuming full-scale nuclear testing, which was halted indefinitely in 1992. Defense Department representative Dale Klein, who visited the Nevada Test Site in August, said tests could be needed within 10 years to determine the effects of corrosion found on existing weapons. Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 34 Blair's Russian mission fails as Putin questions UK 'propaganda' Independent.co.uk By Nigel Morris in Moscow 12 October 2002 A downcast Prime Minister flew back from Moscow knowing he had a diplomatic mountain to climb to persuade UN Security Council members to issue an ultimatum for the Iraqis to comply with weapons inspections. Mr Blair had appeared uncomfortable as President Putin delivered a scathing critique of "propagandistic" claims that President Saddam was illegally stockpiling deadly weapons. The rebuff for Mr Blair came on the same day that the Nobel peace prize was awarded to the former American president Jimmy Carter, who has warned of the "tragic error" of his country's moves towards war. In a rare swipe at a sitting US President, the Nobel committee said the award should be seen as a criticism of George Bush. British diplomats took comfort from Mr Putin's first public declaration that he would be prepared to consider a fresh UN resolution on Iraq, although he said his preference was to secure the return of weapons inspectors to Baghdad without the threat of military action. At a brief joint news conference, he expressed scepticism at the immediate threat posed by President Saddam as set out in a recent Downing Street dossier. He said: "Any government would release some information to the mass media. That is certainly done to shore up their position. It could be seen as a propagandistic step." He added: "Russia doesn't have in its possession any trustworthy data which would support the existence of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We haven't received from our partners any such information as yet." Mr Putin cited in support this week's assessment to the US Congress by the CIA that President Saddam was unlikely to be preparing for chemical or biological strikes. But he added: "We do have apprehensions such weapons might exist in the territory of Iraq. That is precisely why we want to see to it that weapons inspectors travel there." Mr Blair admitted there could be "different perspectives" regarding the threat but added: "There is one certain way to find out, and that is to let the inspectors back." A British official said: "There are still a lot of hard negotiations ahead to close the differences.'' The official said a quick agreement was unlikely and an EU summit at the end of this month would provide the next opportunity for Mr Blair to discuss the crisis in person with his overseas counterparts. The delays may try the patience of President Bush, who on Thursday secured the support of Congress for the use of military force against Iraq. Mr Blair and Mr Putin, accompanied by their wives, held talks and a working dinner at the Russian leader's country retreat. Mr Putin said he was pleased Iraq had agreed to the readmission of weapons inspectors. "We see no need for any new United Nations security council resolution." In a hint of flexibility, he added: "We don't exclude the possibility of coming up with some co-ordinated decisions, including the possibility of a new resolution." British officials said the comments showed Moscow was shifting position. One source said: "We believe we are moving forward in securing a fresh mandate for inspection." But, underlining the Russian position, a deputy foreign minister, Yuri Fedotov, said the draft American resolution on Iraq contained conditions that could not possibly be implemented. Asked whether Russia had been offered help to cushion the impact on its economy of a war against Iraq, Mr Putin said the meeting should not be portrayed as "a bargaining place'' or as an "oriental bazaar''. He added: "The economic consequences are of importance both to us and of other states of the world, including the United Kingdom. We necessarily discussed this.'' [http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/] [http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/] Law &Order Politics [http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Space/] [http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/] [http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/TechNews/] [http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/MediaNews/] [http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/] In Depth [http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WarOnTerrorism/home.html] Canadiana Weather Best Pix Environment --> [http://shop.canoe.ca/] CanoeGoogle [ border=] News Tickers [http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/] -World --> [http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/] -Canada --> The West Ont/Que Atlantic Business Sun Papers Columns Your View Forums Trivia Quiz --> Today in History Charities --> Monday, Oct. 14, 2002 October 12, 2002 Iraq promises to behave 'professionally' toward UN weapons inspectors BAGHDAD (AP) -- Iraq reserves the right to end co-operation with UN weapons inspections if it deems Washington is manipulating them, the Iraqi inspections chief said, clouding prospects of the high-stakes UN missions before they even resume.  The Iraqi warning by inspections chief Gen. Hussan Mohammed Amin --  -- made in the face of threatened U.S. military action -- raises the possibility old problems would haunt any new UN inspections to ensure Iraq can no longer produce weapons of mass destruction.  In a letter Saturday, Iraq promised to behave "professionally" if UN weapons inspectors return to the country and gain access to President Saddam Hussein's palaces and other suspect sites.  In the letter, sent to the Vienna headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Saddam adviser Gen. Amir al-Sadi said Baghdad sees no obstacles to a resumption of the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said in Vienna,  That letter came a day after another letter from al-Sadi, this time to UN weapons inspectors, appeared to ignore details of agreements hammered out with the inspectors on their eventual return.  In Washington, the U.S. State Department expressed skepticism at the latest letter.  "Iraq continues to want to play word games, not comply," spokeswoman Jo-Anne Prokopowicz said Saturday.  "They will continue to make contradictory promises and then choose the version of most tactical benefit at any given moment."  Meanwhile, Iraq's legislature met in an emergency session Saturday but said nothing about a resolution by the U.S. Congress giving President George W. Bush authority to use force against Iraq. Instead, Iraq legislators condemned a resolution by Congress that recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  Charges of Iraqi deception and U.S. double-dealing have dogged the inspections -- inaugurated in 1991 with volleys of Iraqi bullets over the heads of newly arrived inspectors, and ended in 1998 with punishing U.S.-British air strikes the night thwarted inspectors finally withdrew.  Trying to stave off a new U.S. attack over what Washington says are covert weapon programs, Iraq has dropped objections to inspectors' return, and said it hopes to see an advance team back as soon as Oct. 19.  Asked if Iraq reserves the right to again revoke co-operation with inspectors, Baghad's inspections chief Amin said: "Of course."  "We gave commitments to co-operate, if they said they will follow scientific and logical measures for inspections and will not misuse them for spying, collecting information," Amin said, speaking inside a walled industrial complex where Washington asserts nuclear weapons work could be under way.  If they will follow scientific measures and they will take measures from the United Nations and not the United States, they should come on the date," he said.  The U.S. administration said Iraq has never complied with inspectors.  "The world is done playing the Iraqi game of denial, deception and obfuscation. The Security Council needs to act to pass an effective new resolution that leads to Iraqi disarmament," an administration official said on condition of anonymity.  Iraqi Islamic leaders appealed to the Muslim world Saturday to come to their aid if the U.S. attacks.  "Take the word of Iraq, which already has lost so much flesh and blood to this country: If no one stops it, it will destroy the whole world!" Iraq's Popular Islamic Conference said in a fatwa, or religious edict, signed by 500 clerics of Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority and Sunni minority.  In the United Nations, Iraq's ambassador said in an interview Saddam has changed since he lost the Persian Gulf War 11 years ago and his country is now doing everything it can now to avert another conflict.  "War must be behind us, not before us," Mohammed al-Douri said.  He spoke as the U.S. administration pressed the UN Security Council to act to match the resolution passed by Congress.  Al-Douri said the Iraqi leadership has changed its policies and tactics since it fought Iran in the 1980s, used chemical weapons against its Kurdish minority, invaded neighbouring Kuwait in 1990 and lobbed Scud missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia during the ensuing Gulf War.  "Ten or even 12 years is enough to judge the behaviour of governments and the kind of relationship we now have with our neighbours. We think of how we can improve relationships, even with the United States," al-Douri said.  For the second time in three days, Iraqis threw open another U.S.-targeted site to western and Iraqi camera crews and reporters. Iraqi generals called it proof of their eagerness to show the world Iraq is innocent of U.S. accusations.  Anti-aircraft guns, trenches and sandbags surrounded the Al-Furat site -- newly fortified against what Iraq fears will be imminent U.S. air strikes, plant director Gen. Sa'adi Abbas Khudeir said.  Inside, bristling clusters of microphones and camera lenses recorded Iraqis working at computers.  Khudeir told journalists the workers were civilian and military researchers, labouring on peaceful electronics research and on weapons systems allowed by the United Nations.  "Believe me, no nukes, no physicists, no program -- just programs that serve the army, maintenance and development, that's all," he said, pointing to equipment.  For reporters with little technical knowledge, it was impossible to judge.  The Al Furat site, south of Baghdad, was one of the four sites that the United States suggested were being developed to produce nuclear weapons, although it admits conclusive evidence is lacking.  Al Furat has been the most closely scrutinized of the four. Washington alleges Iraqis have been caught trying to smuggle aluminum tubes into the complex -- parts the United States says could be used in a centrifuge to enrich uranium to weapons grade quality.  Iraq denies ever having a nuclear weapons program. UN authorities said they caught Iraq in the early 1990s with a nuclear arms program.  Iraq has remained under UN sanctions since the 1991 Gulf War. The United Nations said the sanctions cannot be lifted until inspectors verify that Iraq has no chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them.  In 1991, Iraqi soldiers fired into the air when one of the newly arriving inspection teams gave chase to a speeding convoy. Inspectors said they believed the trucks were carrying parts for uranium-enrichment devices.  Two months later, the IAEA charged Iraqis had tried to hide radioactive material contained in nuclear fuel rods by driving it around in trucks when inspection teams visited.  Fitful squabbles and dustups followed in the ensuing years. Throughout, the United States and Britain and others complained Iraq spoke of full co-operation while blocking access on the ground. Iraq contends the United States upheld the sanctions as a vendetta against Saddam.  In 1998, work broke down for good. Iraq declared all co-operation over. UN teams withdrew. That same evening, the United States and Britain led four nights of the most intense bombardment on Baghdad and other points in Iraq since the Gulf War.  In an interview with a German magazine Saturday, Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan held out the prospect renewed inspections for the first time could include Saddam's dozen-plus palaces.  Asked about the palaces by Der Spiegel magazine, Ramadan said: "Our position is that the inspectors can seek and inspect however and where ever they would like to."   CNEWS Poll An Ottawa waitress has been awarded workers' compensation because of the second-hand smoke at her workplace. Do you agree with the decision? Yes No Not sure [http://cgi.canoe.ca/htbin/survey/survey?poll=021010_cnews&resultsonly=1&pollre sulttype=percentage] Spread the News! Send this URL to: Destination email address: Your email address: CNEWS Forums [http://cgi.canoe.ca/cgi-bin/mb/render?product=5&board=9992] [http://cgi.canoe.ca/cgi-bin/mb/render?product=5&board=10932] [http://cgi.canoe.ca/cgi-bin/mb/render?product=5&board=1681] [http://cgi.canoe.ca/cgi-bin/mb/render?product=5&board=4924] Top News Law &Order Tech News Best Pix--> Politics Features--> In Depth Space Science Weird News News Tickers Newsmakers--> Your View Forums Columns SUN Papers WORLD | [http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2002/10/13/1743.html] CANADA | Royals arrive in capital WORLD | [http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2002/10/01/1094.html] CANADA | [http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2002/10/13/1745.html] CANADA | Kraft expands recall of Teddy Grahams WORLD | [http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2002/10/13/1754.html] MIDEAST CRISIS | Hebron standoff continues HEALTH | China rejects U.N. HIV/AIDS report WORLD | Knife seized in Smart case --> Your View Write a letter to the editor, or check out what others are saying. Inside CANOE.CA SLAM! Sports Jam! Showbiz AllPop CNEWS Webfin Money C-Health Lifewise Home &Garden AUTONET.CA Newsstand Travel City Sites En Français ------------ Search eBay.ca 411 online Free E-Mail Shop.canoe.ca Forums/Chats CareerConnection Classified Extra Newspaper Archive Match Contact Obituaries Today ------------ Weather Horoscopes Lotteries Crossword Scoreboard News Ticker Biz Ticker Sports Ticker TV Listings Movie Listings CLIVE Concerts Hockey Plus Mutual Funds Stocks Feedback Index ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [http://www.canoe.ca/home.html] | We welcome your [http://www.canoe.ca/Help/feedback.html] [http://www.canoe.ca/copyright.html] © 2002, CANOE, a division of [http://www.netgraphe.com/english/index.html] . All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 42 In their own words Salon.com News | Why Sens. Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Chuck Hagel, Dianne Feinstein and John Kerry voted for Bush's war resolution -- and why Robert Byrd voted against it. oct. 11, 2002 | Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. Today we are asked whether to give the president of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program. I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day, especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion. I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right. Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi, Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge. As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities. In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by U.N. resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets. In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of Sept. 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: What should we do about it? How, when, and with whom? Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform. This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom. However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak. If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan? So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option. Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The U.N. deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The U.N. can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal. But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway. In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons. So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both diffuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations? While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the U.N. for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 U.N. resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998. If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition. If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise. If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want. I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq. President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any U.N. resolution calling for unrestricted inspections. This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction. And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this president, or any future president, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the president's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them. My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world. Over 11 years have passed since the U.N. called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections. And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am. So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him -- use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein -- this is your last chance -- disarm or be disarmed. permission is strictly prohibited Copyright 2002 Salon.com Salon, 22 4th Street, 16th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone 415 645-9200 | Fax 415 645-9204 E-mail | Salon.com Privacy Policy | ***************************************************************** 43 UN Security Council sets date for Iraq debate ABC News - 12/10/02 : "Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online"> [http://abc.net.au/] After a month of considering the issue, the United Nations (UN) Security Council has announced it will begin debate on Iraq on Thursday (Australian time). The announcement that an open debate will finally begin on Iraq was made by Security Council president Cameroon's Martin Belinga-Eboutou, who says the decision was unanimous among the 15-member body. The United States wants the UN to rewrite the ground rules for inspections and allow any UN member to decide, without further council consultation, if Iraq has violated any terms of the new resolution and then launch a military strike. France strongly opposes the draft, and wants to give the arms inspectors a chance to do their work and then have the Security Council be the final authority for force if Iraq balks. Earlier today, it was revealed Iraq has written to the head UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, telling him Baghdad is ready to receive inspectors from October 19. Putin Meanwhile Russian President Vladimir Putin has cast doubt on British and American claims Iraq has a hidden cache of weapons of mass destruction. The Russian leader made the comments following talks in Moscow with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Mr Blair travelled to Moscow seeking Mr Putin's support for the tough UN resolution proposed by the US, one that threatens Iraq with force. Mr Blair was soon disappointed, with Mr Putin refusing to back any UN resolution which threatens force, but says he would consider a new resolution that bolsters the powers of UN weapons inspectors and gets them back into Iraq as soon as possible. "We are ready together with our partners to search for ways to ensure the work of [UN weapons] inspectors in Iraq," he said. "With this aim in mind, I do not rule out reaching a joint position, including a UN resolution." Missing pilot The US Navy says it has reclassified a pilot downed in the 1991 Gulf War to reflect a new presumption that he could be alive and in Iraqi hands. Navy officials say Captain Michael "Scott" Speicher should be listed as "missing-captured," rather than simply missing in action. Captain Speicher's FA18 Hornet was downed over Iraq in January 1991, the opening night of the US-led war to drive Iraq from Kuwait. The Navy says the new classification does not mean they have proof Captain Speicher is still alive, but underscores the belief the Iraqi Government is withholding information about him. © 2002 Australian Broadcasting Corporation This service may include material from Agence France-Presse (AFP), ***************************************************************** 44 '62 crisis illuminates flaws of policy on Iraq Conflict: Unlike the Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. approach to Baghdad seems emotional, ill-conceived and too risky. By William R. Polk Special To The Sun Originally published October 13, 2002 As the American government mobilizes to attack Iraq, it's worth comparing the dangers, objectives, means of action and possible results with that other great crisis: the Cuban Missile Crisis 40 years ago this month. Having been a member of the "Crisis Management Committee" on the Missile Crisis and having studied the Middle East for a half-century and helped to design American policy toward it, I suggest the following perspectives: First, how real and how urgent is the danger? In the Missile Crisis, America faced a superpower of roughly its size and strength, run by an experienced, capable and centrally controlled military and civil bureaucracy with a huge and well-equipped armed force that had nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Certainly, the Soviet Union had the capability of destroying the United States. The American government believed that its best chance of surviving the century was by maintaining a balance - stunningly referred to as "the delicate balance of terror" - with the Soviet Union. What seemed so dangerous was that by putting missiles in Cuba, the USSR would "tilt" that balance and so endanger world peace. In contrast, Iraq is a tiny country about two thirds the size of Texas of which 70 per cent is desert or steppe, inhabited by fewer than 20 million people deeply divided religiously and ethnically. Moreover, one third of the country (Kurdistan) is, de facto, a separate state. Under boycott, Iraq's revenue (particularly in foreign currency) has been drastically reduced. Its small and comparatively obsolete armed forces, badly mauled in the gulf war, have never been fully rebuilt. Like virtually every other country, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, but there is no indication (despite vague accusations) that Iraq has - or in the foreseeable future could produce - nuclear weapons. Finally, unlike the Soviet Union, Iraq is ringed by stronger neighbors: Turkey and Israel both have much larger and more modern armed forces, and Israel has about 400 nuclear bombs and the means to deliver them. Despite attempts to link Iraq to the al-Qaida organization, there is no evidence of such a link. Osama bin Laden was so strongly opposed to the Iraqi regime that in 1990 he offered to form an international brigade to attack it. Objectively speaking, Iraq has no significant capacity to harm its neighbors or to threaten the United States. Yet, the American government believes that there is a threat and intends to react. Response is the second point of comparison. The U.S. government's reaction to the Cuban Missile Crisis was essentially defensive. True, the U.S. was prepared to invade or bomb Cuba to destroy the missiles, and quickly mobilized forces to do so. But throughout those critical days of October 1962, everyone in the circle around President Kennedy was attempting to find alternatives, in accordance with international law. In contrast, American policy toward Iraq today is offensive: President Bush has deployed military force and announced his intention to attack Iraq, whether or not it allows full and unhampered inspection of military assets, whether or not American action violates international law and whether or not it is sponsored by the United Nations. The third comparison is the objective. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. objective was limited: Get rid of the missiles. Had Washington raised the stakes to include the overthrow of Castro, Moscow probably would not have acquiesced. In contrast, America's announced policy toward Iraq calls not just for full access for inspectors or even just for reduction of real or alleged military potential but also for a "change of regime." That equates, bluntly, to a death sentence for Saddam Hussein and other members of his government. Thus, while Iraq has a "national interest" to avoid invasion and bombing, its rulers have no incentive to meet U.S. demands. Regardless how they act, the U.S. has told Hussein and his regime that they are doomed. The Iraqis might conclude that the best chance of survival lies in making attack unacceptably expensive. Thus Iraq would try to acquire nuclear weapons, to produce as much chemical and biological material as it can, to develop means of delivery, to engage in, encourage or position itself to be able to carry out terrorist acts and, of course, to hide from prying eyes. In short, Washington's current policy appears likely to produce exactly the result it should seek to avoid. A fourth comparison is how the government set about accomplishing its objectives. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, four features stood out. Although very small, the U. S. team was diverse, composed of various political persuasions, both Republican and Democrat; great emphasis was placed on consultation with allies; the public was given an honest and fairly complete view of the evidence for action; and the team around the president, to the best of my knowledge, never considered either the possible implications of our policy on elections or the influence of any lobby. The contrast today with each of these items is telling. The only people who exercise any influence in the presidential circle seem to be from the far right of the Republican Party. Except for Great Britain and Israel, consultation with allies has been minimal. Little "hard" information has been given to the public (references have been made to "highly classified" information, but they are vague). While even President Kennedy's strongest critics never suggested that electioneering played any role in the Cuba Missile Crisis, many believe it plays a major role in determining Middle Eastern policy today. This charge is given currency by even former senior Republican officials and military commanders who doubt the supposed danger; by the coincidence of the planned action with congressional elections; and by the president's assertion that "in this war," criticism of his policy is unpatriotic. A fifth issue to be compared is expertise. I found the members of the Missile Crisis team the most able, experienced and dedicated group I have ever worked with. In contrast, the "experts" today seem more ideologically motivated than informed or experienced. Senior government officials in the Defense Department, the CIA and even in the State Department office dealing with Iraq have been brushed aside, and the impressive number of former senior diplomatic, intelligence and military officers form a pool of expertise that is untapped. Putting all this together, it seems that while all crises are dangerous, America is now acting in ways that make this crisis unnecessarily and perhaps unacceptably so. America has reacted emotionally rather than rationally, without careful and professional evaluation of the options, with insufficient assessment of the costs of the actions or what would follow. "Shooting from the hip," we may cause the death of thousands of people; spread the very dangers we seek to avoid; give license to repressive regimes that profoundly oppose our way of life; corrupt the wells of our influence throughout the world, causing even our allies to regard us as a "rogue" state; and, finally, bring about enormous internal damage to our country and particularly to our tradition of civil liberties, democracy and the rule of law. William R. Polk was a member of the Policy Planning Council from 1961 to 1965; then professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Chicago and president of the Adlai Stevenson Institute of International Affairs; he is the author of a number of books on international affairs and the Middle East, including The United States and the Arab World. Copyright © 2002, The Baltimore Sun ***************************************************************** 45 Iraq backs off deal with U.N. on inspections Stance annoys France, Russia, diplomats say Julia Preston, New York Times [chronfeedback@sfchronicle.com] Saturday, October 12, 2002 --> United Nations -- Iraq, ignoring rising global pressure for thorough inspections of its weapons programs, has backed away from agreements reached last week on minimum conditions for the inspectors to carry out their work, diplomats said on Friday. In a letter that became public on Friday, Iraq did not meet a specific request to confirm agreements it made last week in Vienna with Hans Blix, the leader of the U.N. weapons inspection team, insisting on further discussions of even basic logistical arrangements. Diplomats said the Iraqi rebuff irritated France and Russia, veto-bearing members of the Security Council that have been resisting Washington's demand for immediate authorization to launch a military attack if the weapons inspections fail. While Iraqi diplomats here continued to insist that they were in "100 percent accordance" with the inspections, U.S. officials said the latest Iraqi move showed President Saddam Hussein's reluctance to cooperate with a search for his weapons of mass destruction. "We are not surprised that once again the Iraqis want to delay and deceive, " said Richard Grenell, the spokesman for John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "We've had 16 resolutions and 11 years of playing this game and it's time the Security Council takes action." The Iraqi letter gave unexpected help to the U.S. campaign for a tough resolution to force Iraq to allow aggressive inspections, after Congress on Thursday gave President Bush the authority to go to war if Iraq does not give up its most lethal weapons to the United Nations. NO COMMENT Blix did not respond to requests for comment on Friday. The Oct. 10 letter from Amir Hammudi Al-Saadi, an adviser to the Iraqi leader, was a reply to a letter two days earlier from Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which handles nuclear inspections. The two arms chiefs had laid out in writing what they understood to be the agreements they reached with Iraqi officials in Vienna last week, which covered basic terms like the number of inspectors who will travel to Iraqi sites, the conditions for interviews of Iraqi officials and other practical matters. They asked Iraq to confirm the agreements. Iraq said it is ready to receive an advance team of inspectors on Oct. 19, but it did not provide the confirmation of the letter that Blix sought, agreeing only to comments Blix and ElBaradei made in a news conference after the Vienna talks and to notes Blix used when he reported to the Security Council on Oct. 3. IRAQ WANTS 'CONSULTATIONS' The Iraqi official said that other problems "that might stand in the way of our future work" would be resolved through "consultations." Despite sharp differences over the terms of a new resolution, all 15 Security Council nations are united in wanting in-depth inspections that can turn up any prohibited weapons programs in Iraq. The new resolution is certain to require far more aggressive weapons inspections than current resolutions, which are still guiding Blix's work. Blix has said repeatedly that the Vienna talks were to finalize practical procedures so there would be no disputes with Iraq once the inspections got under way. The negotiations Iraq proposed in the letter appeared to be laying the ground for the kind of squabbles that slowed the inspectors in the past, before they were pulled out in 1998, which Blix hoped to avoid. But Iraq also qualified its assent by saying that its offer for full access for the inspectors applied only to U.N. measures "previously in place," meaning that it does not agree to open Hussein's eight presidential compounds to snap inspections, as the United States and Britain have demanded. PAYMENT REQUESTED Iraq repeated a suggestion it made in Vienna that the United Nations should pay for the security and other services the government will provide to the inspectors, reversing past practice, when Iraq paid the bill. Al-Saadi said this was not a condition. Although officials in Washington said that the action would shift today to the United Nations, there was little progress on the draft resolution that the United States and Britain have proposed, as diplomats continued to talk behind the scenes looking for compromise. The United States and Britain want one resolution with rigorous inspections and a trigger for military action if Iraq does not cooperate. France has proposed two stages, leaving the authorization of force to a second council vote. PUTIN MAKES HIS POINT President Vladimir Putin of Russia also said on Friday that he would not support the use of force in a resolution. Putin spoke in Moscow before Russia's representatives at the United Nations had received the Iraqi letter. The Arab nations said they see no need for any new resolution from the council. Before he received a copy of Iraq's letter, Secretary-General Kofi Annan, speaking Friday at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass., said he believed the council was leaning toward the French position. "I think the member states want a two-stage approach: Send in the inspectors. If they get in trouble, come back and we will pass a second resolution," Annan said. ©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.   Page A - 1 ***************************************************************** 46 Bush's evidence of threat disputed Findings often ambiguous, contradict CIA Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer [rcollier@sfchronicle.com] Saturday, October 12, 2002 --> With a resounding congressional endorsement behind him, President Bush confronts Iraq bolstered by the near-universal consensus that Saddam Hussein poses a security menace to his neighbors and the United States. But while the political debate appears to be all but over, nagging questions remain about the evidence the administration has put forth to support its stance. In some cases, the evidence is at best insubstantial. In others, ambiguous intelligence data have given rise to interpretations that are highly subjective or just plain wrong. In some instances, administration statements appear to run directly counter to assessments made by intelligence agencies. For example, Bush has warned darkly of the possibility that an unprovoked Iraqi attack on the United States using weapons of mass destruction could come at any time. "The final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud," he said in a speech Monday in Cincinnati. But in a letter delivered to Congress the next day, CIA Director George Tenet said the CIA had concluded that "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW (chemical or biological weapons) against the United States. Should Hussein conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions." The administration has also asserted as a given -- and few critics have questioned -- that the Baghdad regime has stockpiled and continues to develop vast quantities of biological and chemical weapons. But a comprehensive British government report, based on its own intelligence agency findings, noted that most estimates were based on guesswork. "Without U.N. weapons inspectors, it is very difficult therefore to be sure about the true nature of many of Iraq's facilities," the British report stated. Equally hard to assess is the extent of Iraq's links, if any, to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups -- an early and key rationale for attacking Iraq put forward repeatedly by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other administration hawks. More recently, Bush cited reports of Iraqi aid to Palestinian terrorist groups and al Qaeda and warned that Hussein could use them as proxies to attack the United States. "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," Bush said Monday. "Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." Most terrorism experts agree, however, that links between Hussein's government and al Qaeda are murky at best. Until late summer, most administration officials -- and CIA and FBI investigators -- said that despite allegations of links between Mohamed Atta, the main planner of the terrorist attacks, and an Iraqi intelligence agent, there was no evidence of ties. They also noted that Osama bin Laden has long been hostile to the decidely secular Hussein. One of the Palestinians cited by Bush, Abu Nidal, was last active in the 1980s and died in Baghdad in August. Another, Abu Abbas, conducted his last terrorist act in 1990, now renounces violence, and lives in the Gaza Strip with apparent Israeli permission. Bush referred to a senior member of al Qaeda who received medical treatment in Iraq. U.S. officials said Tuesday that the operative in question is Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian who lost a leg during the U.S. war in Afghanistan and fled to Iran, then to Iraq, before leaving for an undisclosed destination. Bush also referred to recent intelligence reports that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb making and chemical warfare. But he held back from a direct statement that Hussein is helping bin Laden's terrorists, saying only that they "share a common enemy" -- the United States. After the speech, administration officials cautioned reporters against drawing tight links between Iraq and al Qaeda. In his speech, Bush was more categorical about Iraq's nuclear program. "Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the (U.N.) International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites," he said. "That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue." In fact, the engineer, Khidhir Hamza, who co-wrote a book titled "Saddam's Bombmaker," retired from Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and left Iraq in 1995. "Hamza had some good information about Iraqi nuclear programs until his departure from Iraq, but that's it," said David Albright, a former nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq and president of the Institute for Science and International Security, or ISIS, where Hamza worked as an analyst from 1997 to 1999. "But he went off the edge. He started saying irresponsible things." Bush also cited satellite photographs showing that Iraq has reconstructed buildings at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. He said Iraq has tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year," Bush warned. But the authoritative International Institute for Strategic Studies, based in London, concluded in a report issued last month that "Iraq does not possess facilities to produce fissile material in sufficient amounts for nuclear weapons" and that "it would require several years and extensive foreign assistance to build such fissile material production facilities." A recent public report by the CIA said that unless Iraq is able to obtain enriched uranium abroad, it will take at least five years to be able to develop the uranium necessary for a nuclear warhead. The CIA report also acknowledges that some nuclear experts believe the tubes could have been intended for conventional weapons purposes, which are not proscribed by U.N. sanctions. "Bush seems to be getting ahead of the facts," Albright said. "These tubes are not central to centrifuge, they're just not." Albright said he had talked to experts on gas centrifuges at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, and "they disagree with how this intelligence is being used, but they have been ordered to keep quiet." Gary Milhollin, a respected nuclear expert who is director of Iraq Watch in Washington, said the aerial photos prove little. "We can't tell what's in those buildings. There isn't proof that there's biological or chemical weapons being made there. Those buildings could be used for civilian industrial uses. That's why we need to resume (U.N.) inspections to check them out." Weapons experts also have questioned administration statements about the extent of Iraq's missile capability. While a 1998 report by U.N. inspectors supports Bush's statements that Iraq possesses Scud-type ballistic missiles with ranges of up to 400 miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey -- there is no evidence that these have been tested or that Iraq has any functional launchers. Bush also warned in his Cincinnati speech that Iraq "has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these (unmanned aerial vehicles) for missions targeting the United States." But many experts believe such remarks are highly exaggerated. Because Iraqi airspace is closely monitored by U.S. and British planes and radar systems, experts say, the slow-moving unmanned aerial vehicles would likely be shot down as soon as they crossed Iraq's borders. It's also unclear how the vehicles would reach the U.S. mainland -- the nearest point is Maine, almost 5, 500 miles away -- without being intercepted. "As a guesstimate, Iraq's present holdings of delivery systems and chemical and biological weapons seem most likely to be so limited in technology and operational lethality that they do not constrain U.S. freedom of action or do much to intimidate Iraq's neighbors," said Anthony Cordesman, a security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. E-mail Robert Collier at rcollier@sfchronicle.com [rcollier@sfchronicle.com] . ©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.   Page A - 13 ***************************************************************** 47 Book: Three lives fused to the A-bomb [SF Gate] Reviewed by David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor [dperlman@sfchronicle.com] Sunday, October 13, 2002 Brotherhood of the Bomb The Tangled Lives and Loyalties of Robert Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence and Edward Teller By Gregg Herken HENRY HOLT; 448 PAGES; $30 One of these days a bold movie producer is bound to make a film from Gregg Herken's fascinating new book, "Brotherhood of the Bomb," and "Tangled Lives" might well be its title. For it's a real drama that surrounded the three major figures in the development of nuclear weapons during World War II, and the intrigues of the Cold War that followed must surely exceed anything a fiction writer could invent. The story had everything: loyalty, disloyalty, sex, spies, atomic war, intrigue, obsessive hatred and White House politics -- plus three highly complex characters, each in varying degrees imperious, noble, self-serving, power-seeking, patriotic, foolish, vain and vengeful. Above all, of course, there was the tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the thin-faced, brilliant, aristocratic theoretical physicist who directed the scientists of the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, where the atom bomb was born, and who was finally pilloried by his enemies as a security risk and a suspected Communist Party member -- the latter charge never to be proved. That Oppenheimer was a friend of many Communist Party members, that his brother Frank and at least one of the women he loved were members and that his own politics were far, far to the left remain undeniable. But it is also true that when Soviet espionage recruiters sought contacts inside Los Alamos, Oppenheimer lied to federal agents about his own awareness of the fact. Why? To protect his brother? To protect himself? To implicate his longtime Communist friend, Professor Haakon Chevalier? He did in fact implicate Chevalier, who fled to exile in Paris wrote these tragic words to Oppenheimer: "Do what we may, by your unfathomable folly, you and I are linked together in a cloudy legend, which nothing, no fact, no explanation, no truth will ever unmake or unravel." That mystery has indeed never been solved, and it is true that when prosecutors at Oppenheimer's final security hearing pressed him to explain why he had lied about the Soviet espionage effort at Los Alamos, his only answer was, "Because I was an idiot." Herken, a specialist on Cold War intelligence and nuclear weaponry, is a senior historian and curator at the Smithsonian Institution's Air and Space Museum. For his exceptionally detailed and thoroughly researched work he has interviewed virtually all the living participants in the atomic bomb controversies and has had access to newly declassified FBI records as well as unpublished letters and memoirs from both U.S. and Russian sources. The book is an extraordinary and revealing examination of the people and atomic issues during and after World War II told with vivid, fast-paced flair in a context of the fateful decisions that still affect us all -- especially as presidential sabers rattle, a new war looms and nuclear know-how as well as arsenals are proliferating. Of the characters, Oppenheimer is the main focus, and his surprisingly close and warm relationship with Gen. Leslie Groves may be a surprise to many readers. Groves, it appears, dismissed "Oppie's" left-wing politics as irrelevant for a long time; he remained loyal to his friend when Oppenheimer's enemies were crowding him. Yet at the last minute when he himself was threatened with indictment on felony charges for withholding information on Oppenheimer, Groves caved in and did testify that his companion during all the tumultuous Los Alamos years was truly a security risk. Then there was Ernest O. Lawrence, the tall, handsome experimental physicist who invented the cyclotron. He was a charming, tireless extrovert who by "sheer force of personality more than by any power of intellect," created the Berkeley radiation lab in the 1930s and drove his "boys" there day and night for years. Despite their disparities, the practical Midwestern Swede and the Sanskrit- quoting Jewish intellectual became close friends. But Lawrence was driven by a thirst for power: He wanted the atom bomb team for Berkeley, and he sought millions for a grandiose machine to make tritium fuel for the hydrogen bomb -- a scheme that failed. And he finally came to loathe his old friend's politics, although he avoided testifying against him at the hearing that stripped Oppenheimer of his "Q" security clearance. And Edward Teller, what of him? The brooding, brilliant Hungarian refugee who had fled both Hungary and Nazi Germany worked brilliantly under Oppenheimer, and it may surprise many to learn that because in the '50s UC Berkeley was firing professors who refused to sign the required loyalty oath, Teller honorably rejected an offer from Lawrence to join the Berkeley faculty. And although Oppenheimer strongly encouraged Teller's early efforts at Los Alamos to develop a hydrogen bomb -- the "Super," as it was called -- the laboratory leader later turned against the idea and did everything he could to foil the H-bomb program. Frustrated and enraged, Teller made end run after end run to persuade the postwar Atomic Energy Commission to support the work; the result was "Mike," the prototype H-bomb blast at Eniwetok Atoll in 1952, which to Oppenheimer was the ultimate horror. Teller's rage against Oppenheimer led him to tell the FBI that Oppenheimer was deliberately giving the government "poor advice and policies regarding national preparedness and . . . delaying of the development of the H-bomb." But there was worse. At Oppenheimer's final security clearance hearing in 1954, Teller's testimony was to prove decisive: "I feel that I would like to see the vital interests of this country in hands which I understand better, and therefore trust more," he said. "I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Oppenheimer was denied his clearance, the H-bomb entered the United States' nuclear arsenal, the Soviets developed theirs, and the world today remains under threat, despite all the recent progress toward nuclear arms control. There was indeed Soviet espionage at Los Alamos, and Klaus Fuchs was only the most famous spy. But throughout Herken's book there are appalling incidents -- many that are being mirrored in the United States today. There were illegal wiretaps and illegal recordings of confidential conversations between client (in this case Oppenheimer) and his lawyers. Private mail was opened, innocent scientists were shadowed, dubious witnesses were unchallenged. "Brotherhood of the Bomb" is at once an absorbing history of a perilous time, a political thriller and a moral lesson for the future. ©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.   Page 1 ***************************************************************** 48 President Putin's doubts over Iraq BBC NEWS | Europe | Friday, 11 October, 2002, 20:45 GMT 21:45 Steven Rosenberg BBC correspondent in Zavidovo They dined on barbecued boar and venison stew, and they went on safari in a national park. They took a boat trip to an island. And they talked at length about Iraq. Tony Blair and Vladimir Putin claim to see the world through similar eyes. But on the question of how to deal with Saddam Hussein the two leaders continue to disagree. [Putin and Blair] The two men did not see eye to eye on Iraq Mr Blair repeated his call for a tough new UN resolution on Iraq. One that would threaten Baghdad with military action if it obstructed the work of a new team of weapons inspectors. After his talks at Vladimir Putin's country residence, north of Moscow, Mr Blair told journalists he believed it was important to have a fresh resolution that makes it clear this new weapons inspection regime is qualitatively different and able to do its job properly. Russian doubts Mr Putin remains unconvinced. He still sees no need for a new resolution. And today he dismissed Mr Blair's dossier of evidence against Saddam as propaganda. Russia has not in its possession any trustworthy data, Mr Putin said, that could support the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He had not received from his partners such information as yet. Mr Putin said, though, he may consider a new UN resolution on Iraq if it became necessary to aid the work of weapons inspectors. A sign perhaps that Russia may be persuaded to join an international coalition against Saddam. Strings But Moscow could lay down conditions - financial ones - amid fears that a military strike against Saddam could threaten Russia's considerable economic interests in Iraq. Russian oil companies have potentially lucrative contracts there. [UN weapons inspectors in Baghdad, 1998] Russia wants arms inspections before any new resolution Could they survive if the United States moves in to remove Saddam? Then there is the matter of $7bn of Soviet-era debt which the Iraqi regime owes Moscow. Will Moscow ever see that money again? Tony Blair has conceded that Russia has legitimate economic interests in Iraq, which need to be addressed. And though he and Mr Putin have denied haggling or discussing a trade-off, it is no secret that Moscow expects to be offered certain economic guarantees in exchange for its support for the campaign to oust Saddam Hussein. © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 49 Carter Wins Nobel Peace Prize, Bush Rebuked Go To Original [http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-nobel-peace.html] By Reuters | New York Times Friday, 11 October, 2002 OSLO (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday by a committee whose head called the decision a deliberate slap in the face for the current U.S. government over its policy on Iraq. Carter, a Democrat who was president from 1977 to 1981, was awarded the $1 million prize from a record field of 156 candidates for decades of work to resolve conflicts from the Middle East to North Korea, and from Haiti to Eritrea. ``This honor serves as an inspiration not only to us but also to suffering people around the world and I accept it on their behalf,'' Carter said in a statement released by his non-profit Carter Center in Atlanta. The secretive five-member prize committee praised Carter, 78, for ``decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.'' The prize, named after Swedish philanthropist Alfred Nobel, was widely hailed abroad as honoring an elder statesman who has been praised more since leaving office than when president. ``It's great. He deserves it,'' said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who shared the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize with the United Nations. The committee praised Carter for an ``outstanding commitment'' to human rights and for everything from his battle against tropical diseases to his help for developing nations. The prize will be handed over on December 10 in Oslo. Carter came close to winning the award in 1978 when Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat shared the prize for the peace accord that he brokered. The committee that year wanted to give Carter the prize but he had not been formally nominated by the February deadline. SLAP IN THE FACE FOR WASHINGTON The chairman of the committee, Gunnar Berge, used the prize to make a scathing attack on President Bush's campaign to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. U.S. lawmakers gave Bush solid bipartisan support on Thursday for a strike on Iraq. Carter said last month it would be a ``tragic mistake'' for the United States to attack Iraq without U.N. backing. ``With the position Carter has taken...(the award) can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq,'' Berge, a former Labour cabinet minister, told reporters after announcing the award. Asked if it was a ``kick in the leg'' at Washington, Berge said: ``Yes, the answer is an unconditional 'yes.''' A ``kick in the leg'' is a Norwegian phrase meaning ``a slap in the face.'' But two committee members said Berge had gone too far. Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, an ex-parliamentarian of a far-right party, said Berge had acted ``unprofessionally'' in going beyond the official citation that only made a veiled reference to Iraq. Berge defended his interpretation. ``I expressed myself as leader of the committee...not on behalf of all of the members,'' he told Norwegian NRK radio. INCENSING GOVERNMENTS Committee decisions have often antagonized governments. The 1975 prize awarded to human rights campaigner Andrei Sakharov incensed the Soviet Union. The 1935 prize to German anti-Nazi journalist Carl von Ossietzky prompted Hitler to ban Germans from ever accepting Nobel Prizes. And the committee angered China by giving the prize to Tibet's spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, in 1989 only months after the Tiananmen massacre. In 1997, anti-land mine campaigners won for promoting a treaty opposed by Washington. The official 2002 text says: ``In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international cooperation based on international law, respect for human rights and economic development.'' Carter won from a field that included Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Chinese dissidents and U.S. disarmament experts in a year dominated by the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on the United States. Ex-South African President Nelson Mandela, who won the award in 1993, praised Carter through his spokeswoman. ``Even now when President Bush has taken that belligerent attitude, he (Carter) has condemned him,'' Mandela said. And Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham told a Helsinki news conference: ``I think the world will generally accept this award as being a very positive sign... about how we would like to see the United States behave in world affairs.'' A former peanut farmer, Carter was the third U.S. President to win the Nobel Prize since it was set up in 1901, following Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 and Woodrow Wilson in 1919. ***************************************************************** 50 Rumsfeld Orders War Plans Redone for Faster Action The New York Times October 13, 2002* *By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT* WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 ? Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that he had ordered the military's regional commanders to rewrite all of their war plans to capitalize on precision weapons, better intelligence and speedier deployment. That way, he said, the military could begin combat operations on less notice and with far fewer troops than thought possible ? or even wise ? before the Sept. 11 attacks. The approach, driven by the defense secretary and his ranking military advisers, is already shaping the work of Gen. Tommy Franks, head of the United States Central Command, in his planning for a possible war against Iraq, senior Defense Department officials said. The command has stockpiled weapons and positioned some troops in the Persian Gulf in an effort to be able to stage a quick offensive against President Saddam Hussein that planners say would be vastly different from the 1991 war over Kuwait. The broad outlines given to the military's regional war-fighting commanders were described in an interview today with Mr. Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Both declined to discuss details of war plans for Iraq, and repeated that President Bush had made no decision to attack. A faster mobilization could give Mr. Bush extra time to pursue more avenues of diplomacy or to allow weapons inspections to run their course. The speedier use of smaller and more agile forces could also provide the president with additional time to order an offensive against Iraq that could be carried out this winter, the optimal season for combat in the desert. The new approach for how America goes to war, Mr. Rumsfeld said, reflects an assessment of the need after Sept. 11 to refresh war plans continuously and to respond faster to the threats from terrorists and nations possessing biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. Mr. Rumsfeld said too many of the military plans on the shelves of the regional war-fighting commanders were freighted with outdated assumptions and military requirements, which have changed with the advent of new weapons and doctrines. "Looking at what was overwhelming force a decade or two decades ago, today you can have overwhelming force, conceivably, with lesser numbers because the lethality is equal to or greater than before," he said. It has been a mistake, he added, to measure the quantity of forces required for a mission and "fail to look at lethality, where you end up with precision-guided munitions which can give you 10 times the lethality that a dumb weapon might, as an example." With a need for fewer bombs to strike designated targets, the military would also require fewer ships to haul the munitions to the war zone, General Pace said. General Pace, the four branches of the armed services and the Joint Staff are conducting studies to measure how quickly the military can deliver its firepower anywhere on the globe. "If you can deliver five divisions anywhere in the world in 90 days, might you have the same impact by getting three divisions there in 30 days?" he said. "Because speed is a force enhancement, force multiplier." Through a combination of pre-deployments, faster cargo ships and a larger fleet of transport aircraft, the military would be able to deliver "fewer troops but in a faster time that would allow you to have concentrated power that would have the same effect as waiting longer with what a bigger force might have," General Pace said. In a new wave of such pre-deployments to the Iraqi front, Pentagon officials said on Friday that planning staffs from the headquarters of the Army's V Corps, based at Heidelberg, Germany, and from the First Marine Expeditionary Force, from Camp Pendleton, Calif., have been ordered to Kuwait. Troops involved in the deployment would number in the hundreds, officials said. Mr. Rumsfeld's order to rewrite war plans that were several years old and to review them more often has long-range consequences for the kinds of weapons the Pentagon buys in the future. part 1 of 2 Copyright The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 51 DOE criticizes contractor's work Augusta Georgia: Metro Web posted Saturday, October 12, 2002 By [eric.williamson@augustachronicle.com] South Carolina Bureau AIKEN - The Department of Energy is displeased with the way the contractor it pays to run the Savannah River Site is conducting its environmental cleanup efforts. According to documents acquired by The Augusta Chronicle, the department's environmental management division says Westinghouse Savannah River Co. has taken the wrong approach to planning projects, at a hefty government expense, and has not been aggressive enough in making necessary work force cuts. In a report on a July trip to the site, the division sounded doubtful that SRS can overcome its obstacles. "SRS has a limited probability of success in achieving the vision outlined in the (August 2001) performance management plan, and additional investment may have the potential for only marginal return," the report stated. A subsequent visit in mid-September contended that not much had changed: "Until the contractor better understands and manages its costs, SRS will not be in a position to actively manage work and prioritize (use of resources)." Westinghouse spokesman Will Callicott said his organization is actively working to address the department's concerns. He said there has been improvement. Some specific complaints from the reports: + A scoring method to determine cleanup order did not give appropriate priority based on hazard. DOE said, for example, that a small spill would be given the same score as a very large spill. + There appeared to be a random approach to choosing facilities to be cleaned up and to be demolished. + Westinghouse's failure to find new solutions to costs, according to DOE, has led site managers cleaning up waste tanks to complain that they don't have funding for demonstration technology. Technology has to be proved safe and effective before it can be implemented, moving cleanup forward. "There are things in that report either out of context or not completely accurate and beg a little more detailed and technical discussion," Mr. Callicott said. But, he added, "We're not going to get into any public dispute with our customer." He assured that the company has legitimate methods for planning, even if "any process can be improved." The department was not completely uncomplimentary about the site's progress. It cited the fact that a record of decision was finalized on the radioactive waste burial ground, that progress has been made on disposing of depleted uranium and that incentives are beginning to make a difference in driving performance. The department's complaints are directly related to recent layoffs at Savannah River Site. According to the July report, "From 1998 to 2002, the number of white-collar workers has grown, while the number of blue-collar workers has decreased. SRS has a suffocating cost structure that the contractor has done little to improve, and the team views this as the single largest factor driving the huge out-year costs forecast for this project." Mr. Callicott declined to describe that language as a call for wide-ranging layoffs. "We are not working to a particular number," he said. Westinghouse acknowledged earlier this week that there will be more layoffs to come, possibly before the end of the year. Department of Energy headquarters spokesman Joe Davis downplayed the site reports, saying the frankness is necessary "to drive improvement in performance." He also said the decision this year to have quarterly visits at the site is not unusual. "Bottom line: We expect performance out of our contractors, and we are always looking for improvements," Mr. Davis said. "There are things in that report either out of context or not completely accurate and beg a little more detailed and technical discussion." - Westinghouse spokesman Will Callicott Reach Eric Williamson at (803) 279-6895 or [eric.williamson@augustachronicle.com] . 1996 - 2002 The Augusta Chronicle. All rights reserved. Read our privacy ***************************************************************** 52 Idaho Lab Moves Nuclear Fuel from Wet to Dry Storage * *IDAHO FALLS, Idaho,* October 11, 2002 (ENS) - In the interest of risk reduction, the U.S. Department of Energy's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory has moved spent nuclear fuel from wet to dry storage and shipped special nuclear material off-site to other DOE facilities. Dry storage of spent nuclear fuel reduces the risk of corrosion and leakage into the environment, the lab said in a statement Wednesday. The last of 42 transfers of spent nuclear fuel and fuel remnants stored in the canal of the Materials Test Reactor has been made to the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, three months ahead of schedule, the lab said. The Materials Test Reactor was the second reactor to be operated at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). It was in operation from 1952 to 1970, and information obtained from tests run at the reactor influenced the choice of core structural materials and fuel elements for every reactor designed in the United States since 1952, INEEL says. Some of the nuclear material moved this week had been in canal storage for more than 30 years after testing on it was completed. The transfers were performed with a specialized cask designed for moving fuel. The Materials Test Reactor canal will now undergo decontamination and decommissioning. Crews completed moving the last of the spent nuclear fuel in wet storage pools at Test Area North into three dry storage casks sitting on a concrete pad. Under the INEEL's Accelerated Cleanup Plan, all spent nuclear fuel will be consolidated and transferred into dry storage at Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center by 2005. There it will be packaged and prepared by 2012 for shipment to the national repository that is scheduled to be constructed by then at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The state of Nevada has six lawsuits before various courts to block the Yucca Mountain project, which also faces more than 250 technical issue that must be resolved before a license can be sought from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2002. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 53 U$ IRRADIATED FOOD to bear "cold pasteurized" label Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 15:20:50 -0500 (CDT) Extract from ... The AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER October 11, 2002 #197 Monitoring Corporate Agribusiness From a Public Interest Perspective EDITOR\PUBLISHER: A.V. Krebs ADDRESS: PO. Box 2201, Everett, Washington 98203-0201 E-MAIL: avkrebs@earthlink.net WEB SITE: http://www.ea1.com/CARP/ FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION ACCEDES TO FOOD INDUSTRY PRESSURE, IRRADIATED FOOD CAN NOW BE LABELED "COLD PASTEURIZATION" CANADIAN BROADCASTING COMPANY (CBC) NEWS ONLINE: The American food industry got the green light to avoid using the word "irradiation" on labels. Intead, the Food and Drug Administration says words such as "cold pasteurization" are all right. Irradiation exposes food to low doses of electrons or gamma rays to destroy bacteria, such as E. coli and salmonella, in food. It has been approved for use on raw chicken and beef, spices and dried seasonings. Food producers have long complained that the public will be scared off by the word "irradiated." They add consumers will be confused by the current rules which require irradiated foods to be labelled "treated with irradiation" or "treated by radiation." In addition, the product must bear the symbol, called a radura, which looks like green petals in a broken circle. Food companies say consumers will think it's a warning. Critics say using different language is a way to hide what actually happens to the food. Some environmental and consumer groups are against the process. They fear irradiating food products will have health effects. Studies suggest the process may deplete vitamins, A, E and K and can deposit carcinogens in their place. When a piece of meat is zapped with ten kilorays or radiation beams, the surge of energy is equal in power to 150 million chest X-rays. Proponents say the process is a powerful tool that will reduce disease in food. They say there are no effects on the taste, quality or safety of the food. More than 40 countries such as France, Israel and Russia have given approval for over 60 food products to be irradiated. Health Canada is poised to approve irradiation of red meat and poultry. Some foods are already approved for irradiation in Canada: spices, flour and onions and potatoes to prevent sprouting. There doesn't appear to be a move to change the labelling guidelines in Canada. Products will have the words "treated by irradiation" stamped on them. ====================== *** 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 original source. *** ***************************************************************** 54 Will Bush's carve-up of Iraq include getting hands on its oil? Independent.co.uk © 2002 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd By Robert Fisk Middle East Correspondent 12 October 2002 There is no Emperor of Iraq ? or is there? The problem for General Tommy Franks ? if he really does turn up in Baghdad to play the role of General Douglas MacArthur ? is that the one unifying, sovereign symbol that held Japan together amid the ashes of nuclear defeat in 1945 was the Emperor Hirohito, mysteriously absolved of all responsibility for Japan's atrocities in the Second World War. His military underlings went to the gallows on his behalf. But in Iraq, the emperor is called Saddam Hussein and ? if we are to believe the US administration ? the Caliph of Tikrit will be in the dock along with the rest of Iraq's war criminals. General Franks will have to combine the role of emperor and colonial governor ? which is how America's whole imperial adventure is likely to come unstuck. What if the mosques defy American occupation? What if the Shia in the south and Kurds in the north set up their own secret administrations? Will the US arrest all the imams who preach against America's hegemony? Immediately after the 1991 Gulf War, a large group of Iraqi opposition figures met in Beirut to plan for a "new Iraq'', fondly and vainly imagining Saddam would be gone within weeks. But within 24 hours the opposition ? including the most secular and liberal of Iraqi movements ? was announcing it would not allow foreign troops to contaminate what it called "the sacred banks of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers''. At this point, of course, the Americans lost all interest in this manifestation of Iraq's opposition to Saddam Hussein. In 1991, US troops occupied only a small part of southern Iraq. Does the Bush administration think things will be any better if they occupy all of Iraq? Now it just might be that the Americans have an emperor in mind for occupied Iraq, a member of the same Hashemite family that was long ago awarded the throne of Baghdad ? courtesy of Winston Churchill ? as a consolation prize for being chucked out of Damascus by the French. The re-establishment of the Hashemite kingdom of Iraq would allow King Abdullah of Jordan to combine his own penniless and vulnerable statelet with the massive oil wealth of Iraq, albeit he will have to share the latter with the equally massive American conglomerates run by President Bush's chums. And then it just might be that Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, whose ministers have spoken openly of "transferring'' the Palestinians out of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, will find the judicious moment to "encourage'' the same Palestinians to leave their land for the new Jordan. Has President Bush thought of this? Has it perhaps crossed the minds of Israel's friends within the US administration? King Abdullah of Jordan is one thing. King Abdullah of Iraq, re-establishing Hashemite power over the Gulf, quite another. Even his father, King Hussein, might have been tempted to contemplate such an outcome. But would the Iraqis go along with this? Do they really want another emperor? No wonder US officials talk of a slow journey to democracy. Japan got its democracy in the end, of course. But Japan didn't have oil. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************