***************************************************************** 10/22/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.272 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: Energy's Hidden Cost* 2 Bush Sees Korean Nuclear Effort as Different From Iraq's 3 Economic muscle may be Washington's main weapon 4 France: Thousands Protest Nuclear Energy 5 France: No Iraq Resolution Yet 6 U.S. Revises U.N. Resolution on Iraq 7 White House Touts Iraq Regime Change 8 U.S. won't solve N. Korea weapons program alone Powell says 9 TXU locked in talks for UK takeover bid 10 Bad diplomacy, bad foreign policy and bad for Britain 11 "Leak part of US strategy against Pak." 12 US: Powell: N. Koreans `Nullified' Deal 13 N. Korea to Have Nuclear Dialogue 14 US: U.S. Undecided on N. Korea Agreement 15 Powell Emphasizes Disarming Iraq 16 Another N. Korean headache 17 Ministers Talks Agree on Nuke Dialogue 18 US: Analysis: Dealing with the 'axis' 19 US: Speakers warn about nuclear war 20 US: IHT: America's nuclear hypocrisy 21 Will Europe Go Nuclear? 22 A Wide World of Trouble 23 Asian Security: Losing Face Over Nukes 24 US: Protesters insist oil greed behind war resolution 25 Moscow and Beijing hold key to Korean pact 26 Making a Case for a U.S. Invasion of Iraq 27 US: Bush's Armageddon Obsession 28 US: Boxer Defends Vote Against War in Iraq 29 US: US judge orders release of Cheney energy papers 30 Seoul criticized for sweeping information on North Korean nukes 31 Sunshine Policy Accused of Soft-Pedaling on Tipoff About NK¡¯s 32 Defense Chief Grilled Over Gov¡¯t Silence on NK Nuclear Program 33 KEDO to Hold Talks With N. Korea on Satellite Network 34 NK Seeks to Use `Package¡¯ Solution for Nuclear Issue 35 Kim urges N.K. to remove nuclear hurdle to peace 36 North ready to remove US nuke fears - top Pyongyang official 37 US: Nuclear power should not be a part of energy investments NUCLEAR REACTORS 38 US: Purdue to help design research reactors 39 DPRK Says Nuke Issue Can be Resolved Through Dialogue 40 World Biggest Nuclear Power Giant Opens Beijing Office 41 US: Valley power to get boost of juice 42 US: Campus to install warning sirens 43 Minister supports Lucas Heights terror safety. NUCLEAR SAFETY 44 US: NUCLEAR-PLANT SECURITY 45 US: Enewetak: Mike Shot 50 years later 46 US: Nuclear Fallout NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 47 Germany has to find somewhere where to store its nuclear waste 48 US: NRC Invites Public to Submit Nominations for Advisory Committee 49 *Sellafield 'posing real risk to ulster'* 50 US: Nuclear worries 51 Ireland puts case against N-plant 52 Irish fight for Sellafield 'secrets' 53 US: Common nuclear waste element could be bomb threat 54 US: Carlsbad Wants Rocky Flats Waste 55 Sellafield hearing gets underway 56 US: Company launches PR effort for Hartsville plant * NUCLEAR WEAPONS 57 Russia to seek info from Pak on nuclear links with N Korea 58 Blair talks down UN split on Iraq 59 Legislator suggests Taiwan go nuclear 60 Israeli Daily Says NK Experimenting in Iran 61 US: Outfitted For Iraq 62 APEC summit discussions to focus on nuclear weapons US DEPT. OF ENERGY 63 DOE the slowest in responding to FOIA's 64 Uranium town confronts past, looks toward future 65 Important dates in 50 years of Paducah, Ky., uranium plant 66 Sandia manager defends nuclear research efforts 67 Future of Paducah plant now uncertain 68 Fees to replace Womack as president of BWXT 69 Energy Secretary Abraham Hosts "Renewable Energy Roundtable" in Sout 70 DOE Names James A. Turi Acting Manager of Oak Ridge Operations 71 Cleanup Work Begins At ORNL's Melton Valley OTHER NUCLEAR 72 Chaos around the White House jelly jar - 73 Nuclear Solutions, Inc. Disburses Funds for Nuclear Wastewater ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Energy's Hidden Cost* COLUMN TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2002 *By GREG ANDECK * One would think that given the wonderful virtues of renewable energy, solar panels would be on top of every home in the United States, and wind turbines would be replacing nuclear power plants and oil pipelines across the country. However, this clearly has not happened. Dirty coal and toxic nuclear generation continue to dominate electricity production, and petroleum rules the transportation sector. These conventional energy technologies continue to dominate because they are cheaper -- at least when you look on the surface. Wind generated electricity, for example, costs about two cents more per kilowatt-hour than electricity generated from coal or nuclear sources; at least this is the impression one might get if only looking at the monthly electric bill. In actuality, the cost to produce coal, oil, and nuclear energy is much greater than that of solar or wind energy. This discrepancy is due to perverse and outdated subsidies that are allowing a few of George W. Bush's oil and coal cronies to get rich at the expense of the environment and taxpayers. What are subsidies? Essentially they are handouts from the government to reduce the cost of industry operation of a nuclear power plant, coal smelter, or oil refinery. Subsidies can be direct payments, but more often include the limiting of insurance risk to accidents, like the Three Mile Island nuclear meltdown, or the use of federal agencies, like the Mining Safety and Health Administration, to benefit industry at the expense of taxpayers. From 1943 to 1999, the nuclear power industry received $145.4 billion of taxpayers' hard-earned money. Fossil fuel subsidies total an even larger amount than nuclear subsidies. In comparison, during the same time period, solar and wind energies received only $5.7 billion. And you wonder why some radical environmentalists like to riot. With this huge inequality in subsidies, it is no wonder that wind, solar, and other renewables are more expensive today than coal, oil, and nuclear energy. The upfront costs and initial investments that were provided to conventional energy industries are simply not there for renewable energy. It requires a great deal of money to establish an energy technology, and renewable energies within the United States have received jack diddly squat despite their zero pollution and negligible environmental impacts. I do not question the necessity of federal subsidies. Clearly they are important in helping emerging industries get their feet off the ground. However, I do have serious problems with the continuation of subsidies for dirty, waste producing industries -- such as those of coal, oil, or nuclear -- when cleaner forms of energy exist. The oil industry, for example, has been around for so long and has so many assets that it shouldn't need government subsidies anymore. It is time these mature industries stop living off of American taxpayers' checkbooks. Because completely pulling the plug on traditional energy sources might cause a short-term spike in energy prices, it would be far better to gradually tip the subsidy balance toward renewable energies. An added benefit is that the United States would begin to solve its share of the global warming problem through reduced carbon dioxide emissions. In addition, the economy could be stimulated by leveling the playing field and creating an open and free market without subsidy price control. It's almost magical, isn't it? Until federal officials begin to make rational decisions on energy use (not to mention that President Bush's energy plan was essentially written by his oil and coal buddies), renewable energies will take time to become established in the marketplace. Nonetheless, they are growing at rapid rates. In the meantime, institutions and individuals can make their own wise decisions and invest in our future by supporting green energies. One would think that Cornell would be a leader in renewable energy support given its huge energy use and deep pockets, yet this has not been the case. With each new building on campus, energy use escalates, though the administration has never budgeted for renewable energies. A solution to this problem would be the creation of an endowment whose generated interest would fund the purchase of green energy. The extra cost to purchase 10 percent of Cornell's electricity from wind sources would be only one percent of the amount Cornell spends on energy annually. Other universities have recognized the importance of purchasing renewable energies. Why hasn't Cornell done the same? Copyright © 2002 by The Cornell Daily Sun, Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 2 Bush Sees Korean Nuclear Effort as Different From Iraq's The New York Times *October 22, 2002* *By ELISABETH BUMILLER* WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 ? President Bush said today that the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, had to disarm his nation "for the sake of peace," but indicated that he saw a significant difference between North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and Iraq's pursuit of them. In his first public remarks about North Korea since the White House announced last week that the country was conducting a covert nuclear weapons program, Mr. Bush said he would use diplomatic pressure, not threats of military action, to try to persuade North Korea to dismantle its nuclear efforts. "It is a troubling discovery, and it's a discovery that we intend to work with our friends to deal with," he told reporters in the Oval Office after a meeting with the NATO secretary general, Lord Robertson. "I believe we can do it peacefully. I look forward to working with people to encourage them that we must convince Kim Jong Il to disarm for the sake of peace." In contrast, Mr. Bush said he was threatening military action against President Saddam Hussein of Iraq because his case was "unique" in that he had gassed his own people and "thumbed his nose" at United Nations resolutions for more than a decade. The president's remarks reflected recent comments by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, that Iraq poses a greater threat to the United States, even if it does not yet have nuclear weapons, because of its record of using chemical weapons and its hatred of the United States and its allies. Nonetheless, Mr. Bush said that he viewed North Korea's admission "very seriously" and that he would work with the leaders of China, Japan, South Korea and Russia at an economic summit meeting of Pacific nations this weekend in Los Cabos, Mexico, to exert pressure on Mr. Kim. The No. 2 official in North Korea made a public overture to the United States today, saying he was willing to negotiate over the country's nuclear weapons program "if the United States is willing to withdraw its hostile policy toward the North." American officials said they were uncertain how to respond to the overture by Kim Yong Nam, the country's nominal head of state. Mr. Kim made the offer during a meeting in Pyongyang, the North's capital, with a South Korean delegation. For now, the administration remains embroiled in an internal debate over how and even if the United States should negotiate with North Korea. Hard-liners in the administration argue that the North should be required to dismantle its nuclear program before any talks can begin, but some State Department officials say negotiations will be necessary before the North can be induced to move. The administration is at the same time under growing pressure from Asian allies, which are urging that talks should begin. A 1994 arms control accord between the United States, its allies and North Korea that might have served as a framework for talks is for all practical purposes dead, and has been ever since the North Koreans admitted to the United States early this month that they were conducting a secret nuclear program. At the same time, North Korea said it had "nullified" the 1994 accord, which provided Western energy aid in exchange for the North's promise to freeze the development of nuclear weapons. Today, senior administration officials said that because the North Koreans had walked away from the accord, the United States had no intention of honoring it. Similarly, the European Union, which is helping finance the construction of two nuclear reactors in North Korea to generate electricity, promised under the accord, said today that it would almost certainly terminate support of the program. "It is difficult in present circumstances to see how we can continue with our contributions unless the North Koreans make clear pretty rapidly that they are going to stop their attempts to develop nuclear weapons," Christopher Patten, the European Union's commissioner for external relations, said after a meeting with European foreign ministers. In Moscow today, John R. Bolton, the under secretary of state for arms control, turned over a dossier of American intelligence on the North's clandestine project. Some American officials have suggested that Russian companies have been among the North's suppliers, though they indicated that the Russians provided less crucial technology than did Pakistan. After the meeting, the deputy Russian foreign minister, Georgi Mamedov, appeared to put the blame for the showdown with North Korea, at least in part, on the administration's new doctrine of military pre-emption and its inclusion of North Korea as part of an "axis of evil." "We think that such statements may aggravate the situation and don't facilitate constructive solution of the nonproliferation issues," Mr. Mamedov said. Copyright The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 3 Economic muscle may be Washington's main weapon FT.com Monday Oct 21 2002. All times are London time. By Andrew Ward Published: October 22 2002 5:00 | Last Updated: October 22 2002 5:00 Washington has said that it is not prepared to enter negotiations about North Korea's weapons of mass destruction. Yet it has also made clear that the US does not favour military action against Pyongyang. The only other weapon available for Washington to use against the communist state, say analysts, is economic sanctions. While North Korea's 1m-strong army and formidable arsenal of weaponry serves as an effective deterrent against military attack, the country's fragile command economy is vulnerable. However, any attempt by the US to strangle the crumbling economy would be controversial, risky and not guaranteed to succeed. The most obvious step the US could take to put economic pressure on North Korea would be to scrap the energy aid promised as part of a 1994 agreement between the two countries. The 1994 Agreed Framework committed the US to supplying 500,000 tons of fuel oil each year to energy-starved North Korea in return for Pyongyang halting its nuclear weapons programme. Washington and its allies also agreed to build two "safe" nuclear reactors in North Korea to replace ones that were being used for military purposes. Colin Powell, US secretary of state, said over the weekend that the Agreed Framework was dead, following North Korea's admission that it had continued to develop nuclear weapons. However, he said that no decision had been made about whether to halt energy aid. An intense debate is under way within the US administration and between Washington and its allies, to decide what to do next. Hawks within the Bush administration are arguing for the aid to be halted. They were always queasy about providing aid and nuclear technology to a hostile regime. North Korea's confession has provided them with the excuse they were looking for to scrap the deal. However, more dovish voices in Washington sympathise with South Korea's concerns about the impact of withdrawing aid. North Korea's economy was isolated when barter trade with the Soviet Union vanished at the end of the cold war. Since then, its once-formidable industrial sector has ground to a halt and famine has killed at least 1m people. Economic output shrank by a third during the 1990s. The economy has grown a little each year since 2000 but remains dependent on foreign aid for its survival - North Korea does not produce enough food to feed its 22m people. Washington has insisted that its contribution to the United Nations World Food Programme's relief effort in North Korea would continue on humanitarian grounds even if economic support was scrapped. However, the reality is that international food aid to North Korea is dropping as donors become frustrated with Pyongyang's failure to help itself. The WFP will fail to feed nearly half the 6.4m people who rely on it this year because of the shortage. Withdrawal of US energy aid would worsen the plight of North Koreans and put the economy at risk of collapse. Visitors to North Korea report that rural towns rely on candlelight at night because of electricity shortages. Factories suffer regular shutdowns because of power failures. Seoul is nervous about any US actions that might increase the chance of sudden state collapse in North Korea. South Korean President Kim Dae-jung's "sunshine" policy of inter-Korean engagement is designed to encourage gradual reform in the north over many years to reduce the cost and risks involved in eventual reunification. A US attack on North Korea's economy would undermine this strategy. ING, the investment bank, calculates that sudden reunification following economic implosion in North Korea could cost up to $3,000bn (£1,935bn, ?3,085bn) in the first 10 years, leading to a "precipitous drop in the south's living standards". Nobody in Washington is publicly advocating state collapse as an objective of withdrawing aid - though some policymakers privately believe such an outcome would be the quickest way to free the North Korean people from their suffering and rid the world of its last Stalinist regime. Instead, economic sanctions would be designed to force North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-il, to abandon his weapons programme in order to save his regime. Japan appears ready to join any effort to target North Korea's economy. In September, Junichiro Koizumi, Japanese prime minister, agreed to grant billions of dollars of aid to North Korea as part of normalisation of relations. However, Yoriko Kawaguchi, Japan's foreign minister, yesterday said Tokyo would not push the process forward "without progress on security-related issues". Even South Korea could join an economic blockade if, as expected, Lee Hoi-chang, presidential candidate of the conservative Grand National party, wins December's election. Mr Lee wants to make aid conditional on Pyongyang's good behaviour. However, analysts say the US and its allies should not underestimate North Korea's resilience. Some even warn that Pyongyang could lash out with military force if backed into a corner. "If North Korea can survive the economic difficulties it faced in the mid-1990s when famine was killing hundreds of thousands, it can survive anything," says one diplomat. Comment | Surveys ***************************************************************** 4 France: Thousands Protest Nuclear Energy Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | [UP] Monday October 21, 2002 6:00 AM STRASBOURG, France (AP) - Thousands of people from more than a dozen countries took part in an anti-nuclear protest march in eastern Strasbourg, home to the European Parliament. Demonstrators taking part in Sunday's protest formed a human chain, donned gas masks, staged a symbolic ``die-in'' and blared an alarm signal to evoke the response to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, the world's worst nuclear accident. The explosion sent a radioactive cloud across much of Europe. The march was organized by a French anti-nuclear organization that claims 650 local associations as members. Activists and politicians from environmentally focused parties across Europe also took part. The activists want a full accounting of the effects of nuclear energy on the environment and studies into ways of ending reliance on nuclear power, and to stop new nuclear power plant programs. Organizers said at least 10,000 people participated, while police put the number at 3,300. Most were from France, which has 20 nuclear power plants and gets three-fourths of its energy from nuclear energy. A delegation of anti-nuclear activists was to meet Tuesday with European Union Energy Commissioner Loyola de Palacio, according to march organizer Reseau Sortir du Nucleaire, or ``Out of Nuclear Network.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 5 France: No Iraq Resolution Yet Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | [Guardian Unlimited] [UP] Monday October 21, 2002 7:50 PM UNITED NATIONS (AP) - France's U.N. ambassador put a damper on prospects for a new U.N. resolution on Iraq on Monday, saying he didn't think the five permanent Security Council members were close to an agreement on the next moves toward Saddam Hussein's government. Ambassador Jean-David Levitte spoke to reporters as he headed into the U.S. Mission to the United Nations for a meeting of the five veto-holding council nations, which remain divided on how tough a new resolution should be. The United States and Britain want a single resolution that would allow the use of force if Saddam does not comply with U.N. weapons inspectors. Last week, Washington backed down from its demand that the resolution authorize ``all necessary means,'' but it is still demanding language stating that Baghdad would face ``consequences.'' France, backed by Russia and China, favors a two-stage approach that would give Iraq a chance to cooperate and only authorize force in a second resolution if Baghdad fails to comply with inspections. The five council members with veto powers are Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. On Sunday, Secretary of State Colin Powell said he expected formally to introduce a resolution to the entire 15-member Security Council early this week, and he said he expects it to be adopted. Council diplomats said the United States distributed a complete new text to the four other permanent members at Monday's meeting, but aside for some initial reactions there were no negotiations. The United States had previously only given out language on some key sections of the draft resolution. The 10 other council members, who are elected for two-year terms, are expected to get the text on Tuesday, diplomats said. Levitte said there was no agreement on a text, and when asked if an agreement was close, he replied: ``I don't think so.'' In Moscow on Monday, a top Russian diplomat warned that Moscow would oppose any new resolution on Iraq that would allow ``automatic use of force'' or contain ``unfeasible'' demands. As Levitte was speaking, about 10 protesters held placards across the street from the U.S. Mission to the United Nations saying ``No Mass Murder of Iraqis'' and ``Hands Off Iraq,'' and shouting ``1-2-3-4, We Don't Want Another War.'' A passing taxi driver slowed down and shouted out the window: ``Why don't you join the army?'' Later, six protesters chanting anti-war slogans were arrested after they sat down outside the mission, blocking its main entrance. They held a banner saying: ``VETO. Hands off Iraq! No Blood for Oil Profits.'' Inside the United Nations, 13 protesters opposed to a new war with Iraq tried to disrupt the General Assembly where the 191 member states were voting for new judges for the International Court of Justice. Chanting anti-war slogans, the protesters were lifted and half-dragged out of the visitors gallery and handcuffed by U.N. security guards. They will be turned over to New York police for prosecution for disorderly conduct, said General Assembly spokesman Richard Sydenham. The Iraq crisis began five weeks ago when President Bush told the General Assembly to confront the ``grave and gathering danger'' posed by Iraq - or stand aside as the United States acts. Iraq responded to the escalating threat of U.S. military action by suddenly inviting U.N. weapons inspectors to return after barring them for nearly four years. The inspectors left Baghdad in December 1998 ahead of U.S. and British air strikes punishing Iraq for obstructing their work. Inspectors must certify that Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs have been destroyed before sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait can be lifted. Iraq has been pushing for an advance party to arrive in Baghdad but chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said he will wait for the Security Council to adopt a new resolution. Blix, meanwhile, was continuing his visits to the permanent council members. He is expected to arrive in Moscow on Tuesday for official talks, including a meeting with Foreign Minister Ivan Ivanov. He will attend a workshop on reducing nuclear threats that is sponsored by the Russian Academy of Sciences on Wednesday and Thursday. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 6 U.S. Revises U.N. Resolution on Iraq Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | [UP] Monday October 21, 2002 7:40 PM WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration said Monday it has revised a proposal to the U.N. Security Council to force Iraq to disarm and said officials were circulating the text for approval. The resolution carries the clear message that Iraq would be disarmed by force if it did not agree to surrender its weapons of mass destruction, said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. ``We're also making clear it is time to wrap this up,'' Boucher said. The revised text, developed jointly with Britain, was being circulated first among the other permanent members of the Security Council - France, Russia and China - and then was to be distributed among the 10 other members of the Security Council. France, Russia and China have all opposed threatening Iraq with force, and could kill any resolution with a veto. American diplomats have negotiated the proposal for five weeks and the views of other nations have been taken into account, Boucher said, without providing any details. At the same time, the White House and State Department said it was unrealistic to think that President Saddam Hussein will yield to international demands that he disarm. The aim of the parallel statements appeared to be to dampen suggestions by Secretary of State Colin Powell that Saddam could remain in power provided the nature of his regime changed through disarmament. U.S. policy remains to seek a change of leadership in Baghdad, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. ``Clearly, if Iraq did all the things the president called on them to do, which they seem to have no inclination to do, then the very nature of the regime would have changed,'' he said. ``But I don't think it's realistic for anybody to think that Saddam Hussein has any intention of leading his regime to change.'' On Sunday, Powell said, ``All we are interested in is getting rid of those weapons of mass destruction.'' Fleischer said discussion of letting Saddam stay is pointless until the Iraqi leader demonstrates he is willing to change. ``Let the change of ways take place and ask me about it after it takes place, and we'll discuss it,'' Fleischer said. ``This is one of the greatest stretches of the hypotheticals, of the possibles, of the unlikelies, that we could possibly, hypothetically discuss.'' ``We think the Iraqi people would be a lot better off with a different leader, a different regime,'' Powell said on NBC's ``Meet the Press.'' on Sunday. ``But the principal offense here is weapons of mass destruction,'' he said, ``and that's what this resolution is working on. The major issue before us is disarmament.'' ``The issue right now is not even how tough an inspection regime is or isn't,'' Powell said. ``The question is, will Saddam and the Iraqi regime cooperate - really, really cooperate - and let the inspectors do their job. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice agreed that ``the goal here is to disarm Saddam Hussein. And in order to do that, we are going to have to test his willingness to cooperate this time around,'' she said on CNN's ``Late Edition.'' ``Either we disarm him, or he disarms himself by cooperating, or we're going to have to disarm him,'' Rice said Sunday. She was not asked whether ``regime change'' remains policy, and she did not mention it. Other administration officials have sent different signals about Saddam's ability to retain power. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, Powell's chief disarmament aide, said last week that not only Saddam but Iraqis ``who are fundamentally a part of Saddam's regime'' would have to go. ``There will be no stability in the region until he's gone,'' Bolton said. Bush said on Oct. 7 that he was ``not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.'' Powell was an early proponent of the regime-change policy. He told the House International Relations Committee on March 7, 2001, that the administration was considering such a policy. Last February, he told the same committee that ``regime change'' was policy, and the United States ``might have to do it alone.'' The United States says Iraq has biological and chemical weapons and could be close to making nuclear arms. Congress has given Bush authority to use military force, after coordinating with the United Nations to see whether inspections can be made to work. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 7 White House Touts Iraq Regime Change Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | [UP] Monday October 21, 2002 7:10 PM WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House said Monday it is unrealistic to think that Saddam Hussein will yield to international demands that he disarm, dampening any suggestion that he could stay in power if he did so. U.S. policy remains to seek a change of leadership in Baghdad, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. ``Clearly, if Iraq did all the things the president called on them to do, which they seem to have no inclination to do, then the very nature of the regime would have changed,'' Fleischer said. ``But I don't think it's realistic for anybody to think that Saddam Hussein has any intention of leading his regime to change.'' On Sunday, Secretary of State Colin Powell said, ``All we are interested in is getting rid of those weapons of mass destruction.'' Fleischer said discussion of letting Saddam stay is pointless until the Iraqi leader demonstrates he is willing to change. ``Let the change of ways take place and ask me about it after it takes place, and we'll discuss it,'' Fleischer said. ``This is one of the greatest stretches of the hypotheticals, of the possibles, of the unlikelies, that we could possibly, hypothetically discuss.'' The United States is presenting a resolution to the U.N. Security Council early this week to set stringent guidelines for new inspections of Iraq's weapons programs, and Powell said he expects passage. ``We think the Iraqi people would be a lot better off with a different leader, a different regime,'' Powell said on NBC's ``Meet the Press.'' ``But the principal offense here is weapons of mass destruction, and that's what this resolution is working on. The major issue before us is disarmament.'' ``The issue right now is not even how tough an inspection regime is or isn't,'' Powell said. ``The question is, will Saddam and the Iraqi regime cooperate - really, really cooperate - and let the inspectors do their job. Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, agreed that ``the goal here is to disarm Saddam Hussein. And in order to do that, we are going to have to test his willingness to cooperate this time around,'' she said on CNN's ``Late Edition.'' ``Either we disarm him, or he disarms himself by cooperating, or we're going to have to disarm him,'' Rice said. She was not asked whether ``regime change'' remains policy, and she did not mention it. Other administration officials have sent different signals about Saddam's ability to retain power. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, Powell's chief disarmament aide, said last week that not only Saddam but Iraqis ``who are fundamentally a part of Saddam's regime'' would have to go. ``There will be no stability in the region until he's gone,'' Bolton said. Bush said on Oct. 7 that he was ``not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.'' Powell was an early proponent of the regime-change policy. He told the House International Relations Committee on March 7, 2001, that the administration was considering such a policy. Last February, he told the same committee that ``regime change'' was policy, and the United States ``might have to do it alone.'' Powell began backing away in an Oct. 2 interview with USA Today's editorial board. Should Iraq be fully disarmed, he said, ``Then in effect you have a different kind of regime no matter who's in Baghdad.'' On Sunday, he said, ``If the inspectors do their job, and we can satisfy the world community that they are disarmed, that's one path. If we can't satisfy the world community that they are disarmed, that takes us down another path.'' On ABC's ``This Week,'' Powell put it this way: ``Either Iraq cooperates, and we get this disarmament done through peaceful means; or they do not cooperate, and we will use other means to get the job done.'' The United States says Iraq has biological and chemical weapons and could be close to making nuclear arms. Congress has given Bush authority to use military force, after coordinating with the United Nations to see whether inspections can be made to work. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, noting the U.S. diplomatic efforts at the United Nations, said the administration was wisely turning away from its go-it-alone approach to foreign affairs. Administration officials, he said, ``clearly have learned the unilateral, dictatorial approach ... did not work, and I think they've accepted it,'' Daschle, D-S.D., told ``Fox News Sunday.'' He said the reaction from around the world to the earlier policy has been ``almost universally negative,'' and only over the past few months ``have we realized that there is a value in this multilateral approach.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 8 U.S. won't solve N. Korea weapons program alone Powell says Tri-Valley Herald Monday, October 21, 2002 - 3:07:25 AM MST administration considers 1994 nuclear agreement effectively dead By William C. Mann Associated Press WASHINGTON -- Fighting nuclear proliferation on two fronts, the Bush administration said Sunday that military action contemplated against Iraq would not now remedy North Korea's violation of a U.S. agreement to dismantle its weapons program. Whether through force or diplomacy, the U.S. goal is to eliminate both countries' weapons programs, the White House's leading foreign policy advisers said. "We're not going to have a cookie cutter for foreign policy, where we try to apply the same formula to every case. It would be foolhardy to do that," said Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser. "The president put it very well when he said there may be many modalities, but there's only one morality. And the morality is that we are not prepared to allow nuclear powers of this kind to grow up," she said on CNN's "Late Edition." Secretary of State Colin Powell stressed the need of working with the leaders of Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and others in the region to deter North Korea's nuclear ambitions. "We'll move forward as a group of nations that are concerned about this issue," he said. North Korea was branded, along with Iraq and Iran, as an "axis of evil" by Bush in January. He pledged after the Sept. 11 attacks that the United States would not allow those nations to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and is said to be working on nuclear arms. Unless U.N. inspectors are dispatched and eventually certify Iraq's disarmament, President Saddam Hussein's government faces U.S. military action either under U.N. auspices or with the authority of a congressional resolution signed by Bush this month. North Korea has chemical weapons and a rudimentary biological weapons program, and the United States says the North Korean officials admitted this month the country is enriching uranium to make nuclear weapons in violation of a 1994 agreement. Rice and Powell said the administration is considering how to force North Korea to abandon its program, but there is no plan so far for an invasion. Powell said the administration considers the 1994 agreement, signed eight years ago today, effectively dead. When the North Koreans told a U.S. envoy of its nuclear program, they "blamed us for their actions and then said they considered that agreement nullified," Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "When you have an agreement between two parties, and one says it's nullified, then it's hard to see what you do with such an agreement." As part of the accord, Washington agreed to head a consortium to provide North Korea with two modern atomic reactors to replace its existing nuclear reactors, which could yield more bomb-grade plutonium. Japan and South Korea were to pay most of the $4 billion bill. A senior White House official said Sunday that, considering North Korea's admission, it was unlikely the two new power plants will be completed. North Korea said the consortium's failure to meet a 2003 deadline was why it nullified the pact. Powell said Bush will consult with the leaders of South Korea, Japan and China this week at a summit of Pacific Rim leaders in Mexico about whether to halt a provision of the agreement under which the United States supplies North Korea up to 500,000 tons of heavy oil a year. The oil is to help meet the country's energy needs until the new reactors come on line. Despite the consultations, the White House official said, the decision to suspend the shipments already is all but final. U.S. officials have said there were aspects of the agreement that the administration wants to preserve. "We're looking at all of the things that rest on the agreed framework, to see what is in our interest to keep doing, what is in our interest not to keep doing," Powell said on ABC's "This Week." He mentioned plutonium stored at a facility in Yongbyon that is monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency and Energy Department workers. "We don't want to see that suddenly become unwatched," Powell said. "So, we have to be very careful and move with a certain deliberateness." Powell said it was essential for North Korea's neighbors and other countries "to put maximum pressure on North Korea to make the point to them that this is totally inconsistent with trying to improve the lives of your people." He said North Korean leader Kim Jung Il constitutes "a threat in his own right" but less so than Iraq's Saddam. Rice cited differences between the two. "North Korea is ... is deterred by 37,000 American forces and a strong alliance with the Republic of Korea that has kept the peace for 50 years," Rice said, and in recent years Kim has indicated a desire for some opening of his society. "It is also a poor and isolated power that ... can be told very bluntly that it cannot break out of that isolation at the same time that it pursues illegal nuclear weapons," she said on CNN. In Iraq, she said, "we've tried everything" since the Persian Gulf War. Both situations are dangerous, but they're not comparable, Rice said. "We believe that we have different methods that will work in North Korea that clearly have not and will not work in Iraq," she said. That approach won praise from Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who has criticized the administration's foreign policy in the past. "I think there are very significant circumstances that require a different approach," said Daschle, D-S.D., "and I think the administration is making the right decision in using the different approaches." ©1999-2002 by MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 9 TXU locked in talks for UK takeover bid Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Geoff Gibbs Monday October 21, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] Management of TXU Europe was locked in talks with financial and legal advisers in the City last night to consider competing takeover bids from Powergen and Scottish & Southern for the troubled power group's UK retail operations. The company, which has more than 5m electricity and gas customers in Britain, has been forced to consider a sell-off or restructuring since being cast adrift by its US parent this month. It is thought an announcement about its future is likely to be made this week, possibly today. Despite the financial crisis, TXU Europe executives are hoping to avoid the company's falling into administration. "We continue to make very good progress on options both for sale and restructuring," said a spokesman as talks with financial advisers NM Rothschild continued. The future of the company and its 1,600 British employees was plunged into uncertainty at the beginning of this month when its Texas-headquartered parent issued a stark profits warning because of weak wholesale electricity prices and fierce competition in the British market. Wholesale price weakness has been felt across the generation industry, forcing British Energy, the nuclear power producer, to turn to the government for a £650m financial lifeline and leading generator Powergen to close a quarter of its capacity and declare the market "bust". The TXU warning triggered a collapse in the US company's share price and a downgrading of its debt. Faced with the choice of protecting TXU Europe or TXU Corporation, the Dallas-based directors chose the latter - cutting off $700m of funds needed to meet long term power contracts with other producers. News of TXU's financial difficulties sparked a flurry of interest across the industry. But it is thought that Powergen, now part of German energy group E.On, and Scottish & Southern, which owns the Swalec and Southern supply businesses, have emerged as the two front runners in any future sale. Both companies have contractual arrangements with TXU and would be hit hard if it were to collapse. At the same time its difficulties could provide a springboard for a large scale expansion. TXU's troubles provide a golden opportunity for Powergen in particular to gain critical mass in the power supply market, where it ranks only seventh with 3.5m customers - way behind market leader Centrica. Acquisition of TXU's 5.25m customers - based mainly around the former Norweb and Eastern electricity supply businesses - would transform the group into a major league player. Powergen yesterday refused to say whether it had tabled a formal bid. But sources close to the company confirmed that an offer - thought to involve about £1.3bn - had been made on Friday night. Scottish & Southern - which at present boasts some 5m customers - was not available for comment. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 10 Bad diplomacy, bad foreign policy and bad for Britain Guardian Unlimited Politics | Comment | Blair's support for Bush on Iraq alienates our allies and brings war closer Simon Tisdall Monday October 21, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] Americans have, for the most part, a good opinion of Tony Blair. They think him a sensible man. So it is with a sense of puzzlement, if not dismay, that many of the 76% of Americans who did not vote for George Bush and oppose his Iraq war plans observe Blair's apparently unquestioning support for US policy. Blair's backing, they worry, makes Bush appear more credible. This bewilderment at Blair's policy is felt in Britain, too. But it also extends across a once anglophile Arab world and is even shared, despite their 12-year battering, by many ordinary Iraqis. It is to be found, too, among the citizens and governments of most of Britain's European partners, in Commonwealth countries and the non-aligned movement, as last week's UN debate on Iraq showed. Is everybody wrong or should Blair pause and think again? Is it really in the British national interest to alienate and antagonise so many influential and valuable allies? Would not a more independent, less uncritically pro-Bush approach be wiser? No, no, dear me, no, says Blair's Downing Street, Jack Straw's Foreign Office and other foreign policy sophisticates: this is all wrong-headed and silly. Britain's friends understand very well what we are doing, that we do not want a war, they say. Our objective is Iraqi disarmament in support of UN resolutions and authority, in accordance with international law, in pursuit of the terrorist threat and of Britain's legitimate security concerns. What is happening right now, they say, is in fact a rather clever campaign to exert maximum pressure on Saddam to comply and thus avoid a conflict. In this, Britain naturally sides with the all-powerful US, as foreign policy realism dictates it must, but also seeks to guide it. If it comes to a fight, even without specific UN blessing, they say, that is ultimately OK because, as the prime minister fervently believes, overthrowing Saddam is morally "the right thing to do". And if people like the Pentagon's Paul Wolfowitz may be believed, a broader benefit is within reach: the prospective democratisation of the entire Middle East, using a "liberated" Iraq as both paradigm and linchpin. It is time, on the eve of a probably definitive UN vote, to expose these arguments for what they are: woolly, contradictory and injurious. The US resolution presently before the security council will, if passed, bring war closer. Even as modified by the French, it still amounts to an ultimatum to Iraq based on a series of demands that will, almost certainly, prove impossible to fulfil. It turns the UN weapons inspectors into a military reconnaissance unit for Pentagon targeters. Far worse, it will thwart the clearly expressed will of the vast majority of UN members. Two years ago Robin Cook, then foreign secretary, called for reform of the security council, warning that it "risks losing credibility unless it more fairly represents the world as it is today". His words were not heeded. But they remain British policy and a fearsome price for this inaction is about to be paid. Far from bolstering the UN, as Bush claims, the new Iraq resolution may condemn it to irrelevance and set a precedent for future, peremptory and essentially unilateral US political and military démarches. To help legitimise the chaotic concept of pre-emptive attack, overturning the UN principle of collective self-defence, is not in the British national interest. The ramifications are many. If Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have their way at next month's Prague summit, Nato members will be expected to endorse the Iraq war, giving Bush the "broad coalition" he seeks but currently lacks, and support a new, out-of-area role for a Nato "rapid response" force under American direction. Never mind that Nato is a defensive alliance; and forget that fond idea of a separate, EU-led military capability, an idea promoted by Blair. Nato and the EU will effectively be told that the "global war on terror", as defined in Washington, overrides all. Bush has plenty more targets where Iraq comes from: Iran is one, allegedly nuclear- arming Syria is another. How about Libya or Cuba? And then there is North Korea, which has suddenly, rather conveniently, confessed to WMD offences. Yet British policy towards all these states is one of "critical engagement", as defined by Cook, emphasising dialogue and diplomacy. The prospect of being led by the nose into Bush's next dangerous escapades is not in the British national interest. I n point of fact, British support for Bush on Iraq is jeopardising British interests across the board. Blair's position has allowed France's Jacques Chirac to put himself forward as a champion not just of Arab concerns but of those of Europeans, too. Blair, who wanted so much to place Britain at the heart of Europe, has on this watershed issue set it significantly apart. What a contrast is presented by Chirac's triumphant Middle East tour last week, during which the 55 nations of La Francophonie backed him on Iraq, and Straw's demeaning traipsing around Arab capitals where he was seen, at best, as Colin Powell's messenger boy. What a difference between European perceptions of Blair as Bush's mouthpiece and of Germany's Gerhard Schröder, the man who refused to "click his heels". Blair has worked admirably to build constructive relations with Russia. But as his recent Moscow visit showed, Vladimir Putin's misgivings could quickly turn to fierce, alliance-shredding hostility if an unsanctioned war is launched. Blair has famously spoken up for the impoverished and dispossessed of the world, especially in Africa. But what prime time effort is now devoted to education and disease? What message is now sent to Zimbabwe's dictator or Kenya's de facto president-for-life? But Blair's biggest, self-defeating self-deception relates to the US itself, for the Bush administration has grown into a juggernaut impervious to meaningful restraint or reasoned persuasion, an aberration in American political life. It pays lip service to international law but opposes the British-sponsored international criminal court. It says it wants an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. But siding with Ariel Sharon, it spurns Blair's pleas for a Middle East conference this year. It claims to fight for democracy and freedom but plans a military regime in Iraq and locks up terror suspects indefinitely without trial. It fights for cheap oil while scuppering Kyoto. It makes unfounded claims about Saddam's links to al-Qaida and expects Blair and the rest of us to swallow them. Bush flatters Blair at his Camp David hideaway. But his hard-faced hawks play him for a mug, the man whose support they can take for granted, who lends a veneer of international respectability, who makes sceptical Americans think that maybe Bush is right after all. This is not good politics nor clever diplomacy. This is not good foreign policy. And it is not in the British national interest. s.tisdall@guardian.co.uk [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 11 "Leak part of US strategy against Pak." Monday, October 21, 2002 Washington, Oct. 21. (UNI): US officials' leak of Pakistan's complicity in North Korea's nuclear weapons programme was a subtle attempt to make sure that President Pervez Musharraf remains cooperative in the battle against al-Qaeda, according to a report by a leading geopolitical analytical firm. The timing of the leak is telling, said the report by Stratfor. It comes soon after Pakistan's October 10 elections, which boosted the power of Islamist parties. "By releasing the information concerning North Korea, the Bush administration apparently is renewing its pressure on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to remain cooperative with Washington's efforts to battle terrorism," the report said. For over a year, Musharraf has been squeezed between Washington and a potential Islamic backlash within his own country. But, the results of October 10 elections left him in a somewhat improved position, Stratfor said. Electoral gains by the pro-Islamist Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) have given Musharraf new leverage with respect to its demanding U S ally, the report concluded. [letters@thehindu.co.in] with full postal address --> The Hindu Group: Home [http://www.hinduonline.com/] ***************************************************************** 12 Powell: N. Koreans `Nullified' Deal Las Vegas SUN October 20, 2002 By WILLIAM C. MANN ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON- Fighting nuclear proliferation on two fronts, the Bush administration said Sunday that military action contemplated against Iraq would not now remedy North Korea's violation of a U.S. agreement to dismantle its weapons program. Whether through force or diplomacy, the U.S. goal is to eliminate both countries' weapons programs, the White House's leading foreign policy advisers said. "We're not going to have a cookie cutter for foreign policy, where we try to apply the same formula to every case. It would be foolhardy to do that," said Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser. "The president put it very well when he said there may be many modalities, but there's only one morality. And the morality is that we are not prepared to allow nuclear powers of this kind to grow up," she said on CNN's "Late Edition." Secretary of State Colin Powell stressed the need of working with the leaders of Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and others in the region to deter North Korea's nuclear ambitions. "We'll move forward as a group of nations that are concerned about this issue," he said. North Korea was branded, along with Iraq and Iran, as an "axis of evil" by Bush in January. He pledged after the Sept. 11 attacks that the United States would not allow those nations to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and is said to be working on nuclear arms. Unless U.N. inspectors are dispatched and eventually certify Iraq's disarmament, President Saddam Hussein's government faces U.S. military action either under U.N. auspices or with the authority of a congressional resolution signed by Bush this month. North Korea has chemical weapons and a rudimentary biological weapons program, and the United States says the North Korean officials admitted this month the country is enriching uranium to make nuclear weapons in violation of a 1994 agreement. Rice and Powell said the administration is considering how to force North Korea to abandon its program, but there is no plan so far for an invasion. Powell said the administration considers the 1994 agreement, signed eight years ago Monday, effectively dead. When the North Koreans told a U.S. envoy of its nuclear program, they "blamed us for their actions and then said they considered that agreement nullified," Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "When you have an agreement between two parties, and one says it's nullified, then it's hard to see what you do with such an agreement." As part of the accord, Washington agreed to head a consortium to provide North Korea with two modern atomic reactors to replace its existing nuclear reactors, which could yield more bomb-grade plutonium. Japan and South Korea were to pay most of the $4 billion bill. A senior White House official said Sunday that, considering North Korea's admission, it was unlikely the two new power plants will be completed. North Korea said the consortium's failure to meet a 2003 deadline was why it nullified the pact. Powell said Bush will consult with the leaders of South Korea, Japan and China this week at a summit of Pacific Rim leaders in Mexico about whether to halt a provision of the agreement under which the United States supplies North Korea up to 500,000 tons of heavy oil a year. The oil is to help meet the country's energy needs until the new reactors come on line. Despite the consultations, the White House official said, the decision to suspend the shipments already is all but final. U.S. officials have said there were aspects of the agreement that the administration wants to preserve. "We're looking at all of the things that rest on the agreed framework, to see what is in our interest to keep doing, what is in our interest not to keep doing," Powell said on ABC's "This Week." He mentioned plutonium stored at a facility in Yongbyon that is monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency and Energy Department workers. "We don't want to see that suddenly become unwatched," Powell said. "So, we have to be very careful and move with a certain deliberateness." Powell said it was essential for North Korea's neighbors and other countries "to put maximum pressure on North Korea to make the point to them that this is totally inconsistent with trying to improve the lives of your people." He said North Korean leader Kim Jung Il constitutes "a threat in his own right" but less so than Iraq's Saddam. Rice cited differences between the two. "North Korea is ... is deterred by 37,000 American forces and a strong alliance with the Republic of Korea that has kept the peace for 50 years," Rice said, and in recent years Kim has indicated a desire for some opening of his society. "It is also a poor and isolated power that ... can be told very bluntly that it cannot break out of that isolation at the same time that it pursues illegal nuclear weapons," she said on CNN. In Iraq, she said, "we've tried everything" since the Persian Gulf War. Both situations are dangerous, but they're not comparable, Rice said. "We believe that we have different methods that will work in North Korea that clearly have not and will not work in Iraq," she said. That approach won praise from Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who has criticized the administration's foreign policy in the past. "I think there are very significant circumstances that require a different approach," said Daschle, D-S.D., "and I think the administration is making the right decision in using the different approaches." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 13 N. Korea to Have Nuclear Dialogue Las Vegas SUN October 21, 2002 By PAUL SHIN ASSOCIATED PRESS SEOUL, South Korea- North Korea said Monday that it was willing to negotiate over its nuclear weapons program if the United States withdraws its "hostile policy" toward the communist country. The comments by Kim Yong Nam, the North's ceremonial head of state, were unlikely to mollify the United States, which has said North Korea's nuclear program is a non-negotiable issue and must be dismantled immediately. Kim made the remarks in a meeting with South Korean delegates in Pyongyang, the North's capital, according to South Korean pool reports. The comments were the North's first official response to a U.S. announcement last week that the communist country had admitted to having a nuclear weapons program in violation of international agreements. "We consider the recent situation seriously," pool reports quoted Kim as telling the chief South Korean delegate, Jeong Se-hyun. "If the United States is willing to withdraw its hostile policy toward the North, the North also is ready to resolve security concerns through dialogue." North Korea has repeatedly accused the United States of plotting to overthrow its government, and has long called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops stationed in South Korea. South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, whose policy of engaging North Korea is under severe pressure because of the revelation about the nuclear program, said the South's national security was at stake. "The danger of North Korea's nuclear weapons development and other weapons of mass destruction should be eliminated completely," Kim said in Seoul. The meeting with Kim Yong Nam took place before the two sides re-convened another round of talks. After receiving five South Korean delegates as a group, the leader met the chief South Korean delegate privately for 50 minutes, according to reports by South Korean journalists. No foreign reporters were allowed to cover the three-day, inter-Korean talks, which opened Sunday. "Both sides were in agreement that the issues raised recently should be resolved expeditiously through dialogue," the reports quoted Rhee Bong-jo, a South Korean spokesman, as saying. The talks in Pyongyang, the eighth since a historic inter-Korean summit in 2000, were meant to discuss inter-Korean reconciliation, but the nuclear issue took priority. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly met Kim Yong Nam when he visited Pyongyang Oct. 3-5. During Kelly's trip, North Korean officials admitted that they have a uranium-enriching program to make nuclear weapons. The North's admission violates a 1994 agreement it signed with the United States, promising to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program in return for construction of two modern, light-water reactors and 500,000 tons of fuel oil a year until the reactors are completed. In talks with Kelly, North Korea said it considered the so-called Agreed Framework invalid because the reactors were not expected to be completed by 2003 as promised. But on Monday, North Korea's Pyongyang Radio urged the United States to honor its commitments under the deal, and said the most pressing issue was compensation for loss of electricity caused by the delay. "Eight years after the Agreed Framework was adopted, the U.S. is still shifting around at the starting line," the radio said in a broadcast monitored by South Korea's Yonhap news agency. "The framework is at crossroads - whether it should be scrapped or not - because of the delay in providing the light-water reactors," the radio said. Kelly, in Tokyo to meet with Japanese officials Monday, said Washington has not yet decided to abandon the agreement. Kelly and other U.S. officials have been working to coordinate an effort among Washington's allies to press North Korea to give up its nuclear program. But U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said in Washington Sunday that the U.S. government considers the agreement effectively dead because of the North's secret nuclear weapons development. North Korea "blamed us for their actions and then said they considered that agreement nullified," Powell said on NBC television. "When you have an agreement between two parties, and one says it's nullified, then it's hard to see what you do with such an agreement." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 14 U.S. Undecided on N. Korea Agreement Las Vegas SUN October 21, 2002 By AUDREY McAVOY ASSOCIATED PRESS TOKYO- A top U.S. diplomat said Monday that Washington has not yet decided to abandon a 1994 agreement with North Korea to control nuclear weapons development, despite revelations the North was violating the pact. "The United States hasn't made a decision," U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly told Japanese Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi in a meeting Monday, a ministry official said. President Bush is considering whether to scrap the 1994 arms control accord that provided Western energy aid to Pyongyang in exchange for vows it would not develop nuclear arms. Under the deal, energy-starved North Korea agreed to halt a suspected nuclear weapons program in return for light-water reactors, which would use non-weapons grade radioactive materials. Officials from a U.S.-led consortium broke ground on the reactors in August. Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, speaking before Parliament, indicated Tokyo is not ready to abandon the consortium, known by the acronym KEDO. "There is no change to our view that KEDO is a means for the international community to prevent North Korea from developing nuclear weapons," Koizumi said. "We plan to work closely with South Korea and the United States to utilize this framework." Still, Kawaguchi told Kelly that North Korea's development of nuclear weapons was a very serious matter for security in East Asia. She added Japan would not sidestep this issue to normalize relations with Pyongyang. Japan and North Korea are due to restart formal talks Oct. 29-30 on establishing diplomatic relations. Further underscoring the sensitivity of the situation, Katsunari Suzuki, the chief Japanese representative to the talks, told Kyodo News Monday the KEDO project may have to be halted or called off if it is clear North Korea violated the international agreement. The agreement was thrown into doubt by Pyongyang's admission to Kelly earlier this month it had been developing nuclear weapons covertly in violation of the pact. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell had earlier said the United States considered the pact effectively dead. "When you have an agreement between two parties, and one says it's nullified, then it's hard to see what you do with such an agreement," he said on NBC television's "Meet the Press." Kelly and other U.S. officials, however, have over the past several days been working to coordinate a response among Washington's allies to deal with the new situation. In Tokyo, Kelly found a receptive ear to his calls for a cautious approach toward the North. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 15 Powell Emphasizes Disarming Iraq Las Vegas SUN October 21, 2002 By WILLIAM C. MANN ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON- Iraqis would be much better off without Saddam Hussein as their leader, Secretary of State Colin Powell says, seeming to back away from the long-held U.S. policy that Saddam must go. There was no official change in policy, but Powell appeared in comments Sunday to play down the demand that the Iraqi president be deposed. He said the United States is presenting a resolution to the U.N. Security Council early this week to set stringent guidelines for new inspections of Iraq's weapons programs. He said he expects passage. "We think the Iraqi people would be a lot better off with a different leader, a different regime," Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "But the principal offense here is weapons of mass destruction, and that's what this resolution is working on. The major issue before us is disarmament." "The issue right now is not even how tough an inspection regime is or isn't," Powell said. "The question is, will Saddam and the Iraqi regime cooperate - really, really cooperate - and let the inspectors do their job. "All we are interested in is getting rid of those weapons of mass destruction." Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, agreed that "the goal here is to disarm Saddam Hussein. And in order to do that, we are going to have to test his willingness to cooperate this time around," she said on CNN's "Late Edition." "Either we disarm him, or he disarms himself by cooperating, or we're going to have to disarm him," Rice said. She was not asked whether "regime change" remains policy, and she did not mention it. Other administration officials have sent different signals about Saddam's ability to retain power. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, Powell's chief disarmament aide, said last week that not only Saddam but Iraqis "who are fundamentally a part of Saddam's regime" would have to go. "There will be no stability in the region until he's gone," Bolton said. Bush said on Oct. 7 that he was "not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein." Powell was an early proponent of the regime-change policy. He told the House International Relations Committee on March 7, 2001, that the administration was considering such a policy. Last February, he told the same committee that "regime change" was policy, and the United States "might have to do it alone." Powell began backing away in an Oct. 2 interview with USA Today's editorial board. Should Iraq be fully disarmed, he said, "Then in effect you have a different kind of regime no matter who's in Baghdad." On Sunday, he said, "If the inspectors do their job, and we can satisfy the world community that they are disarmed, that's one path. If we can't satisfy the world community that they are disarmed, that takes us down another path." On ABC's "This Week," Powell put it this way: "Either Iraq cooperates, and we get this disarmament done through peaceful means; or they do not cooperate, and we will use other means to get the job done." The United States says Iraq has biological and chemical weapons and could be close to making nuclear arms. Congress has given Bush authority to use military force, after coordinating with the United Nations to see whether inspections can be made to work. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, noting the U.S. diplomatic efforts at the United Nations, said the administration was wisely turning away from its go-it-alone approach to foreign affairs. Administration officials, he said, "clearly have learned the unilateral, dictatorial approach ... did not work, and I think they've accepted it," Daschle, D-S.D., told "Fox News Sunday." He said the reaction from around the world to the earlier policy has been "almost universally negative," and only over the past few months "have we realized that there is a value in this multilateral approach." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 16 Another N. Korean headache Daily Yomiuri On-Line Yomiuri Shimbun North Korea's breach of trust in developing an enriched-uranium nuclear weapons program has collapsed the foundation of the 1994 Agreed Framework between Washington and Pyongyang. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly, who arrived Sunday in Tokyo, conveyed Washington's sense of crisis to the Japanese government. North Korea must unconditionally and immediately halt its newly revealed nuclear weapons development program. At the same time, the international community should stop Pyongyang from developing nuclear arms by applying as much pressure as possible by any necessary measures. KEDO may be kaput One thing that needs to be reviewed at the moment is the project carried out by the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO). Based on the 1994 Washington-Pyongyang accord and funded by Japan, the United States, South Korea and the European Union, the project is building two light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea and providing 500,000 tons of fuel oil annually until the completion of the reactors. However, we can no longer continue the project, which was offered in return for Pyongyang halting the development of nuclear arms, now that Pyongyang's violation of the accord has come to light. The nations involved are urged to discuss what to do with the project--including its suspension--as soon as possible. Pyongyang's No. 2 leader, Kim Yong Nam, who is the president of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly, said in his meeting Monday with South Korean Unification Minister Jeong Se Hyun that Pyongyang is ready to eliminate security concerns if Washington stopped treating it as an enemy. North Korea has crafted its own brand of brinksmanship, under which it creates tensions by itself and then attempts to win something in return for making partial concessions. We highly suspect that North Korea is resorting to these tactics yet again this time. However, Washington reportedly said that it would not accept such a deal. North Korea should be fully aware that its usual strategy will no longer work. Apart from the nuclear arms development program, North Korea must also refrain from nuclear proliferation in the form of sales of fissile materials such as plutonium and highly enriched uranium to other countries. To prevent North Korea from taking such actions, we believe it is imperative to win cooperation from its immediate neighbors, China and Russia. By involving those two countries along with Japan, the United States, South Korea and the EU, concerted action could be taken by the international community. Every possible measure must be taken, such as a binding resolution by the U.N. Security Council. Japan's time for leadership In this regard, Japan is expected to play an important role. In her meeting with Kelly on Monday, Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi clearly said there would be no progress in normalization talks with North Korea unless there was progress on Pyongyang's nuclear arms development. It is natural for the government to take such a stance. Leaders of Japan, the United States and South Korea will hold a meeting on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, which will start in Los Cabos, Mexico, on Saturday. Following the meeting, Japan is to resume talks on normalization of diplomatic ties with North Korea on Oct. 29. Japan bears a heavy responsibility in the international community in eliminating nuclear threats posed by North Korea. (From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Oct. 22) Copyright 2002 The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 17 Ministers Talks Agree on Nuke Dialogue Digital Chosunilbo (English Edition) : Daily News in English About Korea Updated Oct.21,2002 15:52 KST by Jang Il-hyun (ihjang@chosun.com) The inter-Korean ministerial talks began on a somber mood Monday morning with South Korea voicing its demand that North Korea scrap its nuclear weapons program. Chief delegate Minister of Unification Jeong Se-hyun met with Pyongyang's number two leader, Kim Young Nam and urged the Stalinist regime to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Kim responded that the North was prepared to solve nuclear issues with the US if Washington withdrew its hostile policy, according to the delegation's Spokesman Lee Bong-jo. This is the same reply given by Deputy Foreign Minister Kang Seok Ju to Asistan Secretary of State for Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly in Pyongyang recently, a clear indication that North Korea will use it as a bargaining chip with the US. Lee said that earlier, Jeong cited the stir the North has created in the international community by admitting its secret nuclear program and called on the Pyongyang regime to freeze its nuclear activities and cooperate in resolving this issue. South Korea has been stepping up pressure since ministerial-level talks began on Saturday, stressing the importance of denuclearization, which had been met with silence. Jeong said the security of the peninsula and dialogue can only be achieved through dialogue. Both sides agreed that issues raised should be solved quickly and peacefully. ***************************************************************** 18 Analysis: Dealing with the 'axis' BBC NEWS | Americas | Monday, 21 October, 2002, [Still from North Korea TV of what is believed to be a Taepodong -1 missile] North Korea may be willing to do a deal with the US By Paul Reynolds BBC News Online world affairs correspondent The admission by North Korea that it has been enriching uranium in violation of an agreement reached in 1994 has opened up a new front in the Bush administration's campaign against the so called "axis of evil". It has confirmed its view that the president was right to name North Korea as part of the axis. [North Korean troops march in a parade] North Korea has an army of more than one million men But what has also emerged is that Washington does not have a one-size-fits-all policy. It is already being made clear that it will deal with North Korea rather differently from Iraq - where war is all but inevitable if Saddam Hussein does not submit to weapons inspections. President Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said that American foreign policy did not have a "cookie cutter" with which to apply the same formula to every case. It would be foolhardy, she said, to do that. Large army That identifies one of the major differences between North Korea and Iraq. North Korea is much stronger. It has an army of more than a million men together with thousands of long-range artillery pieces which could easily hit the South Korean capital, Seoul. So the incentive for the Bush administration to find a diplomatic solution is very real, especially as right now it is preoccupied with Iraq. It also feels, or has done to this point, that North Korea is amenable to some sort of deal. [Iranian President Mohammad Khatami ] Iran, too, could cause growing US concern Not that in the end, Washington might not launch a strike on North Korea's nuclear facilities. It prepared such an operation before the 1994 agreement and would probably do so again, if negotiations fail this time. The logic of its policy against weapons of mass destruction in the hands of certain states would demand that. The third member of the axis, Iran, is not an immediate crisis for Washington, though there are rumblings in Israel about the sale by North Korea to Iran of ballistic missiles. Israel's concerns usually get the attention of Washington's policy makers. One report from a leading military commentator in Israel even claims that North Korea has been enriching its uranium in Iran. Such claims by their nature are impossible to verify. But Iran's intentions on the nuclear and missile fronts are likely to grow as an issue for the United States. © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 19 Speakers warn about nuclear war The Eagle Online - Campus News By REBECCA BYERLY Eagle Contributing Writer Monday, October 21, 2002 A forum on “The Growing Nuclear Threat Applying Lessons of History to Today's Nuclear Crisis" was held by Professor Peter Kuznick last Wednesday as part as his American history class. Koko Tanimoto Kondo, atomic bomb survivor, and AU graduate was one of three speakers in a forum held in Ward. The other speakers included Tadatoshi Akiba, Mayor of Hiroshima, and Jonathan Schell, an authority on nuclear issues, and the author of numerous books on nuclear disarmament. Fifty-seven years have passed since atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Akiba wonders what the world learned from the experience, he said. There are more than 30,000 nuclear weapons in eight nations and the threat of nuclear war is growing, according to Akiba. He asked AU students to take a stand in the fight for the elimination of nuclear weapons. In addition to talking with AU students, the mayor also visited the White House. Akiba had hoped to talk with the D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams and encourage him to join Mayors for Peace. Mayors for Peace began 20 years ago in Hiroshima. The organization is a voice for people who do not support the use of nuclear weapons from cities around the world. There are currently 533 cities worldwide in the organization. "It would be a powerful statement to the world if the capital of the United States joined Mayors for Peace," Akiba said. Kondo the youngest survivor of the 1945 bombing of Hiroshima told AU students of the suffering she saw as a result of the atomic bomb. "There were so many people that lost all hope in humanity after the war," Kondo said. Kondo said her hope was restored after seeing Robert Lewis, the copilot of the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. A reporter asked him how he felt after the bombing. Lewis replied: "I looked down at the mushroom cloud and thought, ‘Oh my God, what have I done?’" “I realized that I could not hate man but must hate war itself,” Kondo said. "The people of Hiroshima and I would like to live, we would like to know, we would like to share what we know. It is our hope that the children of the 21st century will turn away from nuclear weapons in the future." The United States advances on Iraq are not going to solve the problem of new clear weapons, according to Schell. Schell, an expert on nuclear weapons and author of a book on the subject, "The Fate of the Earth," spoke out against military action. "History has taught us that you can't stop the spread of scientific knowledge by force, can't bomb ideas and formulas out of people's minds with B-52 bombers, but you can make an awful mess of the world trying," Schell said. Kuznick, professor of History and director of AU’s Nuclear Studies Institute, has been taking students to Japan each summer since the nuclear program began in 1995. He was delighted when his students at AU were able to engage in part of the overseas experience, he said. © Copyright 2000-2002 ***************************************************************** 20 IHT: America's nuclear hypocrisy Tad Daley IHT Monday, October 21, 2002 Nonproliferation LOS ANGELES The revelation that North Korea has pursued an active nuclear arms program vividly illustrates the precarious foundations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The rest of the world will not forever forgo nuclear weapons if the United States insists on forever retaining nuclear weapons. Few Americans know that the U.S. government committed to eliminate the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal when the Nonproliferation Treaty came into effect 32 years ago. "The Nonproliferation Treaty does not simply aim to maintain the nuclear status quo," George Bunn, who served on the original U.S. negotiating team, said last spring. Article VI "requires that the original five nuclear weapon states pursue effective nuclear disarmament measures." At the heart of the Nonproliferation Treaty is a grand bargain, whereby the nonnuclear weapons states agreed never to acquire nuclear arsenals, in exchange for the nuclear weapon states agreeing eventually to get rid of theirs. Moreover, the nuclear weapon states - pushed hard by a group of middle powers known as the "New Agenda" countries - recommitted themselves to this goal at the 30-year Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference in spring 2000. The conference's final statement, signed and agreed to by Washington, pledged "an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals." But the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review, released this year, indicates a clear intent to maintain a colossal nuclear arsenal for time without end. It lays out elaborate plans for designing and developing new generations of nuclear weapons for air, sea, and land deployment in 2020, 2030, and 2040. It does not name a date for any "unequivocal undertaking" on abolition. The New Agenda countries expressed their astonishment over the audacity of the Nuclear Posture review in a joint statement just a few months ago. "Any presumption of the indefinite possession of nuclear weapons by the nuclear weapon states," they said, "is incompatible with the integrity and sustainability of the nuclear nonproliferation regime." Why does this matter? Why should the United States bother to keep its word? Because the longer America insists on holding on to its own nuclear arsenal, the more likely it becomes that others will acquire nuclear arsenals of their own. When the United States insists that nuclear weapons are vital to its own security but harmful to the security of others, it becomes hopelessly lacking in credibility. If North Korea does in fact already possess nuclear warheads, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Thursday, that makes nine nuclear weapon states. Can there be any greater threat to human security than the possibility of a world with 10 or 20 or 30 nuclear weapon states? If that world comes to pass, some kind of nuclear conflagration - perhaps by an accidental or unauthorized launch, perhaps at the hands of a nuclear terrorist, perhaps by leadership miscalculation in a hot political crisis - will become inevitable. If anything seems preordained about the political landscape of the future, it is that humanity will eventually have to choose between a world of dozens of nuclear weapon states or a world of zero nuclear weapon states. A world with a few "nuclear haves" and a great many "nuclear have-nots" cannot forever endure. The writer, a visiting scholar at UCLA's Burkle Center for International Relations, contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune. Copyright © 2002 the International Herald Tribune All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 21 Will Europe Go Nuclear? As energy supplies and the time to replace them run short, the idea of nuclear power may make a comeback By Stryker McGuire NEWSWEEK Oct. 28 issue — Want to play british Energy minister, boys and girls? Go www.sparkingreaction.info. Click on the games icon and then hit powering up. “Britain’s nuclear power stations are getting old,” you’re told. You need new power plants to replace them. You’re environmentally aware and suspicious of anything nuclear, so you hastily build some wind farms, maybe also a bio-fuel plant. You throw in a gas-powered plant for good measure. Time’s up. “OH, DEAR,” NOT good enough, the game informs you. “The country is plunged into chaos, with blackouts everywhere!” Go to your room and don’t come out until you can be a little less shortsighted. The Sparking Reaction Web site is sponsored by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., a major player in the nuclear-energy business. No surprise here; the industry has been pushing its “go nuclear” message for decades. The surprise is that real, grown-up Energy ministers in Britain—and elsewhere—are listening. In the next few months, the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to announce that it supports the construction of a new generation of nuclear power generators. And while the British Energy minister, Brian Wilson, would not disclose the contents of a government white paper due out early next year, he did tell NEWSWEEK: “It’s not enough to say we’re keeping the nuclear option open, as we have in the past. We have to at least lay the groundwork for new build.” There, buried in cautious bureaucratese, is a step that could turn Britain—and maybe even Europe—on its ear. Like most of the Continent, Britain has for decades been stolidly, even rabidly anti-nuclear. The doubts began with Britain’s first reactor accident, in 1957. They grew with Three Mile Island in the United States in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. “No nukes” protests became part of the social scenery. As a result, Britain hasn’t built a nuclear power station since 1995—and that came only after 15 years of contentious debate. When it comes to politics, as one power-industry exec succinctly puts it, “there are no votes in nuclear.” Which makes Tony Blair’s U-turn all the more remarkable. In a stroke, he will be reversing what has been the antinuclear dogma of British governments, regardless of party, since 1994. So what explains the change? In a word, time. It’s running out, according to the PM’s chief science adviser, David King, a convert to nuclear power. North Sea oil reserves are being depleted. Tensions in the Middle East underscore Britain’s vulnerability to oil and natural-gas shocks. The alternative fuels that were all the rage a decade or two ago have proved inadequate. Like the gamers on the Sparking Reaction Web site, Blair has to figure out a solution if he’s to keep Britain humming. Between now and 2020, the 33 nuclear reactors up and running today will close or be coming to the end of their lives. Given the five-year lead time, at a minimum, needed to build new plants, the government is concluding that the moment to act is now, or else. The change should reverberate across Europe, which shares Britain’s doubts about nuclear energy despite having invested heavily in it in the 1960s and ’70s. (France, for instance, gets nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants.) Over the past two decades, safety and environmental concerns have cast a cloud over the industry. As elsewhere in the industrial world, there has been a rush to plentiful (and cheap) natural gas. In country after country, Europeans have put nuclear programs on hold, in some cases phasing existing plants out of service, even as much of the rest of the world—particularly Asia—has gone nuclear in a big way. Antinuclear government policy is deeply rooted in places like Germany and Sweden, which have influential Green parties. But perceptible shifts in favor of nuclear are not limited to Britain. What’s more, they are cropping up despite post-9-11 concerns about terror attacks on nuclear plants or having fissile material fall into the wrong hands. In May the Finnish Parliament gave the go-ahead for construction of a new nuclear unit—the first European Union legislature to do so in more than a decade. Spain, which imports 77 percent of its primary energy, is less solidly antinuclear than it has been at any time since 1984, when it imposed a moratorium on nuclear-power-plant construction. Italy imports more electricity (most of it from nuclear France) than any other country in the world. Having shut down all its nuclear plants after a 1987 referendum, Italy has begun to consider whether it should restart its program. Even in Germany the antinuclear pall is not as thick as it once was. The country officially began phasing out its nuclear program two years ago, but that decision could well have been overturned by Edmund Stoiber, whose Christian Democrats last month nearly put Gerhard Schr.der and his “red-green” coalition out of office. The nuclear teeter-totter in Germany reflects the precarious balancing act throughout Europe. “There is still resistance to nuclear energy, but the situation is changing,” says Loyola de Palacio, the European commissioner for Energy and Transport. “The old taboo that kept people from even uttering the name ‘nuclear’ has clearly been broken.” Why? Consider the new realities: Energy dependence: Traditional fossil fuels are dwindling. The dash to gas left Europe dependent on the reserves of the former Soviet republics and the Middle East. The prospects of war in Iraq—not to mention a series of oil-price shocks over the years—is just the latest reminder. “Energy security is now very high on the agenda in Europe,” says Paul Felten, senior vice president at the nuclear power company Areva. “This makes sense when you see what is happening around the Caspian Sea and the gulf.” Indeed, security concerns were decisive to the Finnish vote in May. With a fast-growing economy, Finland has come to rely on a single fuel (natural gas) and a single source (Russia) for most of its power. Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen warns that all of Europe runs the risk of becoming a “fossil monster,” every bit as vulnerable to fuel disruptions as Finland. Energy disappointments: Wind and solar power, biomass and other alternative sources will gradually gain importance, but in most countries they will never produce more than a small fraction of total energy needs. Even with two more decades of subsidies and research, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, so-called renewables probably could not provide more than 3 per-cent of global electricity needs. Denmark (which has no nuclear plants) leads the way in such programs, generating 20 percent of its electricity from wind-powered turbines, the fastest-growing energy source in the world. But such environmentally friendly solutions are increasingly coming under attack as noisy and unsightly. What’s more, the development of wind power has virtually no chance of keeping pace with rising energy demand, in Denmark or anywhere else in Europe. Environmentalism: The Kyoto accords commit Europe to cutting greenhouse-gas emissions by an average 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. Some countries face particularly steep cuts. Britain, for example, has pledged a reduction of 12.5 percent. At present, 71 percent of Britain’s energy comes from carbon-dioxide-producing fossil fuels; 22 percent comes from nuclear. Many experts, including the Royal Academy of Engineering in a report published in August, believe the country simply cannot meet this goal without new nuclear plants. Construction costs: Building a nuclear power plant is expensive—about $2,000 per kilowatt, compared with less than $600 for a gas-fired plant. But improvements in technology, better design and economies of scale now promise to bring construction costs down to a more manageable $1,000 per kilowatt. Streamlining the regulatory process will further reduce costs, according to Bruce Lacy, the nuclear-business manager for Alliant Energy. Safety: Yes, there was Three Mile Island. But in the most serious accident in the history of American nuclear power, no one was physically harmed. There was also Chernobyl, where 41 workers died of radiation sickness and childhood thyroid cancer was detected in more than 2,000 people. But it’s also true, advocates remind us, that over decades nuclear power has proved remarkably safe. Coal-mining accidents and gas explosions kill thousands of people every year; many are so routine as to go unreported. There is also the collateral damage from air and water pollution caused by mining and burning fossil fuels—a death toll that will soon rise to nearly 3 million people a year, according to the World Health Organization. Points such as these may help Tony Blair make his case. But it won’t be easy. Anti-nuclear sentiment is deeply entrenched in British society, long fertile ground for Greenpeace and other protest movements. In 1957 a reactor fire at the world’s first nuclear power plant, in Sellafield, England, burned out of control for days. There were no apparent injuries, but even so, the event still resonates among Britons as the world’s worst nuclear accident until Chernobyl. Britain’s record since then has not been entirely reassuring, either. In 1999 British media reported that Sellafield workers had falsified quality-control data regarding the reprocessing of used nuclear fuel. Power companies in Japan, Germany and Switzerland profoundly embarrassed Britain by subsequently rejecting reprocessed fuel from the country. Most recently, just as word leaked that Blair was turning pro-nuclear, the British government had to cough up .410 million to save the country’s privatized nuclear power company, British Energy, from insolvency. The causes for the financial meltdown were varied, ranging from the high cost of recycling radioactive waste to the difficulty of competing with gas-fired plants. But it will no doubt cast a shadow over any plan to resurrect the industry. Against this rather messy backdrop, Blair’s anticipated green light for nuclear power can be read in two ways. Some see it as a bold and farsighted initiative, taking account of the long-term energy needs of the country. Others say it’s dangerously overreaching—an example of the almost swaggering self-assurance Blair has come to display after nearly six untouchable years in office with his determination to position “New Labour” as the party of business. It also demonstrates yet again the extent to which Blair takes his cue from the United States. In its 2001 energy plan, the Bush administration gave nuclear a seat at the head table once more, a point that was noted by the advisers drafting Blair’s energy white paper. According to some reports, Blair’s Department of Trade and Industry would even like to promote a “speed approval” scheme for new nuclear plants in Britain, including fast-tracking designs previously approved in America. Meanwhile, lobbies are mustering on both sides of the issue. “The important thing is to take the long view,” says Norman Askew, who replaced John Taylor as head of state-owned British Nuclear Fuels. “They’ve got to do that soon or it’s going to be too late.” Meanwhile, protesters from Greenpeace occupied rooftops at British Energy’s Sizewell B nuclear power station last week to protest Blair’s perceived apostasy. Their message: nuclear power is “unsafe, uneconomic and unpopular.” (It’s opposed, they say, by 72 percent of Britons.) No matter where you sit, come early next year Blair looks set to trigger a “significant event” of the nonradioactive sort. No wonder the rest of Europe is watching warily. With Samia Marais in Paris, Barbie Nadeau in Rome, Charles Ferro in Copenhagen and Richard McColl in London © 2002 Newsweek, Inc. ***************************************************************** 22 A Wide World of Trouble [MSNBC.com] As the U.S. prepares for war against Iraq (left), it must contend with the prospect of a nuclear-armed North Korea, led by Kim Jong Il (center), and Al Qaeda-attributed attacks like the bombing in Bali (right) A Wide World of Trouble While Bush pushes war against Iraq, new threats loom from Al Qaeda and North Korea. Can we fight on all these fronts? By Michael Hirsh, Tamara Lipper and Michael Isikoff NEWSWEEK Oct. 28 issue — George Tenet could not have been more plain-spoken. “They are coming after us,” the CIA director warned last week, on the edge of his seat, glaring. “The threat environment we find ourselves in today is as bad as it was last summer—the summer before 9-11.” Tenet’s words were unnerving; it was almost as if a year of “war on terror” had not happened. HIS WARNING CAME amid a week of new terror mysteries: a horrific mass murder in Bali, a killing of a Marine in Kuwait, a Philippine bus bombing, an attempted hijacking in Morocco. Al Qaeda, Tenet said, has “reconstituted” (and is presumably no longer “hiding in caves,” as President George W. Bush likes to say). Tenet said he’d talk to Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge that day about raising the nation’s official threat level. Which raises another mystery: why, the morning after Tenet’s disturbing testimony before Congress, Ridge and his staff declined to notch up the national terror-warning system from yellow (or elevated) to orange (high)—which itself is not even the highest level (red). “They went round and around on this,” said one administration official. Why no change? As a White House official explains, “We don’t have the operational ability to do it”—to stay at such a high level of readiness and counterterror threats. Translation: America doesn’t have the resources to take on the threats it’s hearing about, much less the ones it doesn’t yet know about. And that doesn’t include invading Iraq—which will require another level of attention, money and personnel. The CIA is already “stressed out,” says one agency officer. It’s not just a question of whether the United States may be biting off more than it can chew by taking on Iraq, says this source: “The fact is, we haven’t been able to chew what’s in our mouth for 10 years.” STRENGTHENING WEAK LINKS One fear is that Qaeda “franchises”—groups linked to or inspired by bin Laden—have spread to new places or re-emerged, hydralike, in old places. In Indonesia, long a weak link in the war on terror, officials are praying that the Oct. 12 Bali bombing may get that country’s sluggish leader, Megawati Sukarnoputri, to crack down. But Jakarta needs care and feeding. “I think we’re definitely going to have to put more people on the ground,” said Zachary Abuza, an expert on Southeast Asian terrorism. “Certainly a lot more people on the payroll. We’ll have to hire more Indonesians to be spies or informers.” All these gathering dangers—and headaches—help explain another of last week’s quandaries: why an administration that for months has been straining to prove that Saddam Hussein is developing nukes revealed only under pressure that it had ironclad proof of North Korea’s nuclear program. The White House revealed it had learned over the summer that North Korea—like Iraq, a member of Bush’s “Axis of Evil”—had a secret uranium-enrichment program for bombmaking. Even more amazingly, the White House said Pyongyang had admitted this two weeks before, on Oct. 3, yet the Bush team came out with the news only when reporters were about to break the story (officials say they delayed because they were consulting with allies on what to do). A day later White House reporters were told President Bush would not discuss North Korea, with one official acknowledging “it is not something we want to elevate.” Said another: “This is an administration with a pretty full plate; we would like some things taken off.” That may be wishful thinking. A nuclear-armed North Korea is potentially at least as scary as Iraq. More so in some ways: North Korea has test-fired a missile with close to intercontinental range, after all; Iraq hasn’t even test-fired the engine for a missile that can go farther than a souped-up Scud. The main difference is that no one in the administration has decided what to do about North Korea’s recalcitrance while the Bush team has built up a yearlong head of steam on Iraq. And unlike Iraq, an attack on North Korea, which has 950,000 troops just 20 miles or more from Seoul (and from 37,000 U.S. troops deployed in South Korea), is all but unthinkable. That is the main reason Bush rejected a military response after a briefing by Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers, sources say, and an administration spokesman pointedly declined to say the United States was interested in “regime change” in Pyongyang. North Korea’s Nukes POLICY DISCREPANCIES The administration’s contrasting response to the twin nuclear threats from Iraq and North Korea could not have been more dramatic. Even as North Korea declared the 1994 Clinton-era “framework” for containing its plutonium-fueled nuclear program “nullified”—raising the danger that it would begin producing more plutonium bombs—Bush officials insisted the program could be salvaged. “Here’s a clear case where containment and deterrence is working,” a White House official said. Administration officials argue that Bush sees a real opportunity to bring China, Japan and South Korea onboard to pressure Pyongyang, and the North Koreans themselves may be signaling a willingness to deal. Even so, Iraq skeptics pounced on the policy discrepancies. “I think they’re rediscovering containment and deterrence, which they were pooh-poohing,” says retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, a Bush Mideast envoy who has annoyed the administration with his fierce public criticism of its Iraq policy. “You’ve got to pick your fights. I rank Iraq as number six or seven in terms of problems. We don’t have the resources and attention, and the risk is too high to go down to that level right now.” (Responded one administration official: “I think it’ll be a while before [Zinni] goes to the Mideast for us again.”) A key problem in the war on terror is getting enough money and manpower, sources tell NEWSWEEK. Ridge has ordered agencies to develop detailed plans for ramping up security measures at each threat level, but changing from yellow to orange would require agencies to implement those measures—perhaps indefinitely. In the absence of new information that would justify lowering the threat level, the Coast Guard would have to maintain expanded harbor patrols, and Customs would have to keep up intensive inspections of cargo, trucks and airplanes. “The concern was, we have no exit strategy on this,” said an administration official. And it means that a strapped intelligence community must work that much harder—even though a much-needed reorganization of its many agencies has not begun. Even hawks like former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a confidant of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s, say the nation hasn’t reckoned with the full costs of the war on terror. By his estimate, defense and intelligence spending will have to leap from just over 3 percent of the GDP to 5 percent, a difference of up to $200 billion, by 2005. Says Gingrich, “We need a national debate that’s not occurring right now” about spending more money. The most precious resource of all may be the time and attention of the president and his senior staff, who are not known for their ability to delegate. That’s especially true of Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, where a tight inner circle of civilians is trying to wrestle a skeptical military into line. “Everything is last minute,” complains a civilian Pentagon bureaucrat. “Everything is an emergency ... It’s exhausting everyone.” ‘NO MORE SIGHS OF RELIEF’ Yet the challenge ahead is not just whether the nation has the resources. As new attacks mount, Americans are coming to grips with a depressing reality: that the age of terror may turn out to be more like living in some kind of endless horror movie, when death can erupt out of any corner of the screen. For Americans there will be, as Tenet said, “no more sighs of relief” when the nation can stand down from terror threats. Some cases will go unsolved: just last week, the first anniversary of last fall’s anthrax attacks passed with little notice—and no arrests. Despite having taken more than 3,000 suspects into custody worldwide, Tenet all but admitted in his testimony that authorities can’t know the “time and date” of most attacks (one reason Ridge decided against elevating the threat level). Officials are conceding they just can’t get to that level of precision—and may never be able to. One example: in early October, NEWSWEEK has learned, U.S. intelligence distributed an alarming report about a possible attack against ships passing through the Persian Gulf, with a port in Yemen mentioned as a likely target. Just days after the report was sent to the White House and via e-mail to FBI counterterrorism agents, on Oct. 6 an explosion ripped through the French oil tanker Limburg while it was en route to the same port in Yemen. This was about as specific a warning as officials have had—and yet there still was not enough detail to thwart the attack. For now, perhaps the biggest unknown is what will come out of a policy that administration hawks are pushing hard: an invasion of Iraq. White House officials dismissed fears that any military action in Iraq will distract from the larger war on terror, saying the two are, as one official put it, “two sides of the same coin.” A senior intelligence official insisted that while invading Iraq will draw off some intelligence resources, Washington’s anti-Qaeda effort will not be jeopardized. Asked whether the United States can “walk and chew gum at the same time,” another Bush official shot back, “Hasn’t it been the military strategy for the last 20 years to conduct two different military campaigns in two different theaters?” Yes, but in this case it’s one regional theater, and a global one. No one in the Pentagon ever made plans for that. And in Washington, a debate is heating up over what an Iraq campaign will do to the balance of power between resource-strained authorities and ever-evasive terrorists. Arab diplomats warn the problem is not the most commonly heard one—that the “Arab street” will erupt against friendly regimes like Egypt or Saudi Arabia—but that more-mysterious terror threats will emerge if an Iraq invasion reminds Muslims who the “Great Satan” is. “It’s not that they will sympathize with Al Qaeda, but that they will hate America,” says a senior Arab diplomat. A THREAT OF ‘CONSEQUENCES’ The administration seemed to moderate its approach toward Iraq last week. Secretary of State Colin Powell compromised on a key U.N. resolution that will authorize new, tougher weapons inspections and threaten “consequences” if Saddam resists. A vote is expected as early as this week. “Iraq is not happening in a vacuum,” said Sen. Chuck Hagel, a prominent critic of the rush to take on Iraq. “It is very clear once again that the only answer is to work through the U.N., with our allies across the world. We do not have the resources alone to deal with this.” Yet hard-liners see attacking Iraq as more necessary than ever, if only to drive home a point that America will not stand down. “I believe deeply that Iraq is a key step to convince the Arab world about our seriousness,” says Gingrich—in other words, to force Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran to crack down on terror. “If we back off now we will have substantially damaged any believability we have.” Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz warned again that “Saddam Hussein consorts and conspires with our terrorist enemies,” though evidence of that remained scant. Skeptics argue that the Bush team hasn’t fully reckoned with the complexities of an Iraq occupation. The administration has likened that task to what America did in Japan and Germany after World War II. But others say another possible analogy is the disastrous U.S. presence in Somalia in 1993, or the equally unrewarding Israeli occupation of Lebanon, which gave birth to Hizbullah. The Pentagon has also been rocked by a study by a former U.S. Army colonel, Scott Feil, that suggests as much as one third of the Army could be tied up in an Iraq occupation, costing $16 billion annually. Worse, the military no longer has the range of skills—lawyers, civil administrators—it had with the draft at the end of World War II. Another retired general, John Sheehan, is scornful about the lack of planning. “At some point, you can’t just ... jump out of an airplane and figure out what you’re going to do when you get on the ground,” he says. “It doesn’t work that way.” Zinni tells NEWSWEEK that, ironically, the Bush administration is now demonstrating the kind of considered policy toward North Korea that is lacking on Iraq. “What happened in [the Iraq] situation is, we said we’re going to war, then we said reluctantly we’d look at other alternatives. It’s exactly the reverse of the way it’s supposed to be: going to war is a last resort.” The tragedy now, he argues, is that the Bushies can’t back down on Iraq without costing America credibility. And in the war on terror, the administration needs all the credibility it can get. With John Barry in Washington, Christopher Dickey in Paris, Joe Cochrane in Jakarta and Mark Hosenball in London © 2002 Newsweek, Inc. ***************************************************************** 23 Asian Security: Losing Face Over Nukes [MSNBC.com] Koizumi was hailed for his deft diplomacy in North Korea. But the North’s nuclear confession now leaves him caught in a lie By George Wehrfritz and Hideko Takayama NEWSWEEK INTERNATIONAL Oct. 28 issue — Truth, as they say, has no place in diplomacy. Yet blatant falsehoods can also prove damaging. Just ask Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who is under the gun to explain certain lines in a joint declaration he signed with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il at a summit meeting in Pyongyang on Sept. 17. THE CONTROVERSIAL PASSAGE reads: “The two nations confirm that they will abide by all international agreements related to the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.” Pyongyang’s nuclear confession last week made it clear that the North Koreans had been violating nonproliferation agreements since the late 1990s. The problem for Japan’s leader is that the United States briefed him on its evidence of North Korea’s covert uranium-enrichment program prior to his trip to Pyongyang. In other words, the Japanese leader signed a joint declaration he knew to be false, only to be caught when North Korea unexpectedly came clean. Last week the Tokyo Shimbun declared Japan’s summit strategy to be “haphazard and without solid principle,” adding that the declaration’s falsehoods amounted to “putting a lid on some-thing smelly.” Tokyo argues that it was all for a noble cause. Priority one for the summit, say Koizumi aides, was to seek information on a handful of Japanese nationals kidnapped and taken to North Korea before 1990. Pyongyang obliged, claiming that eight of them had died and allowing the surviving five to visit Japan—an outcome that bolstered Koizumi’s approval ratings and reinvigorated his 18-month-old administration. Those gains could now be eroded. “I am afraid that the government has been putting too much emphasis on the abduction issue and not giving enough to the nuclear and missile problems,” says Motoi Tamaki, a North Korea specialist in Tokyo. “Japan lost face by signing the declaration while knowing that Pyongyang was continuing its nuclear program.” North Korea, too, could lose out. Before its bombshell disclosure Pyongyang had hoped for fast-track normalization with Japan, a development it calculated would win up to $10 billion in war reparations. Now Tokyo is under pressure from Washington to withhold any funds and make regional security a top priority. “North Korea’s behavior—that is, signing the declaration while hiding the truth—can only be called abject,” read a Yomiuri Shimbun editorial last week. “Under the circumstances, we can- not expect North Korea to uphold the declaration.” Tokyo will demand that Pyongyang halt its nuclear program when the two sides open normalization talks in Malaysia on Oct. 29. Not everyone forecasts a breakdown. “Many analysts mention how the normalization talks will be overshadowed by the nuclear issue,” says Noriyuki Suzuki, director of the monitoring service Radiopress in Tokyo. “On the contrary, I think that Japan can play an important role as a channel between the North and Washington.” Provided Tokyo pays more attention before it puts pen to paper. © 2002 Newsweek, Inc. ***************************************************************** 24 Protesters insist oil greed behind war resolution by Franci Richardson Monday, October 21, 2002 About 200 anti-war demonstrators marched through Boston and Cambridge yesterday, protesting a potential attack on Iraq, which they believe is motivated by President Bush's greed for oil and power. ``We have to remember this is the son not only of Vice President (George H.W.) Bush and President Bush, but the son of a former director of the CIA, an agency that's used American resources to topple a government whenever it decides to, without any congressional resolution,'' said City Councilor Chuck Turner at a mid-march rally held at MIT. ``They say this is a democracy, and if it's a democracy, that means it's not the country of Bush and his cronies. It's a country of the people.'' Labeling Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as an imminent threat to the United States, Bush last week won a congressional resolution that would allow him to use military force to disarm Iraq of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Sondra Kasshana, 45, traveled from her home in Chelmsford to join the student-organized protest. ``I don't feel the government is being honest about its motives,'' said Kasshana. ``The government is quite concerned that oil reserves are an issue in this country and Iraq has the largest oil reserves in this world.'' Howard Zinn, an activist and Boston University professor emeritus, told the lively crowd that war is a waste of American resources. ``You read the papers,'' he said, ``there's no money for health care. There's no money for housing. You read about thousands of people who are homeless on the streets of Boston . . . but there's money for guns and bombs and what is called security. The only security we can have is in people's health and well being. War is the enemy of security.'' George Bryant, a protester, said rallies are hopefully one way of sending the message to Bush that many Americans don't support his stance against Iraq. ``I think people need to be yelling and screaming because the president is not listening,'' Bryant said. ``He doesn't really care what the American people think.'' Asked whether he would be frightened if Hussein acquired weapons of mass destruction, Bryant answered, ``I'm more afraid of George Bush.'' © Copyright by the Boston Herald ***************************************************************** 25 Moscow and Beijing hold key to Korean pact . All times are London time. By Andrew Ward Published: October 21 2002 5:00 | Last Updated: October 21 2002 5:00 When James Kelly, US undersecretary of state, flew to Asia last week for emergency talks about North Korea's nuclear weapons programme, it was not South Korea or Japan, Washington's strongest Asian allies, that he visited first. Instead, Mr Kelly started his tour in Beijing. John Bolton, another US undersecretary, then headed to Moscow. It was only after two days in China that Mr Kelly arrived in Seoul, before moving to Tokyo yesterday. The itineraries reflected Washington's belief that it may be North Korea's traditional allies - China and Russia in particular - that hold the key to disarming Pyongyang. Pakistan, suspected of supplying components for North Korea's uranium enrichment programme, is another country with close ties to Pyongyang that the US will be relying on to isolate the communist regime. Although North Korea was named by President George W. Bush alongside Iraq in an "axis" of evil rogue states, Washington is taking starkly different approaches toward the pair. While the US is prepared to act alone with military force against Iraq, Washington is making clear it wants international help in imposing "maximum international pressure" on the more heavily armed North Korea. Washington hopes China and Russia will be its most effective partners in imposing that pressure. Beijing and Moscow retain strong ties with Pyongyang dating back to the trio's cold war alliance. Diplomatic and economic support from China and Russia are all that prevents North Korea and its ravaged economy from total isolation. Pyongyang is more likely to take advice from its friends, analysts say, than its cold war enemies in Washington, Seoul and Tokyo. The incentive for China and Russia to act as Washington's agents in Pyongyang would be improved relations with the US and greater stability in north-east Asia - a quid pro quo that Beijing, at least, appears ready to accept. Mr Kelly said he discussed North Korea's nuclear activities "in great detail" with China. "The Chinese made it very clear that they strongly oppose any nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula." Washington's wooing of China, ahead of President Jiang Zemin's visit to Mr Bush's Texas ranch this week, suggests the US increasingly sees Beijing as an ally in dealing with North Korea, after decades spent on opposite sides of the cold war divide. Chinese co-operation with Washington could deepen the tensions that have emerged recently between Beijing and Pyongyang. Analysts say China has tired of its neighbour's belligerent behaviour and has been irritated by an influx of North Korean defectors. However, while China appears ready to support the US, Russia may be less keen. Relations between Moscow and Pyongyang have blossomed recently, with Vladamir Putin, Russia's prime minister, twice meeting Kim Jong-il, his North Korean counterpart, in the past 18 months. Analysts say Russia has cultivated a role as North Korea's mentor, helping it reform its economy and advising it on how to deal with Washington. In return, Russia hopes to benefit if and when North Korea's economy opens up. Moscow's close relationship with Pyongyang is one of its few remaining sources of influence in east Asia and it would be reluctant to end that. Russia may be more likely to act as Pyongyang's advocate in Washington than Washington's advocate in Pyongyang. Pakistan's relationship with North Korea is the most central to Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programme. The US suspects the country supplied components for North Korea's uranium enrichment project in return for ballistic missile technology. Islamabad denies the allegation, but will nonetheless come under pressure from Washington, its ally in the war on terror, to sever links with Pyongyang. Washington hopes that if trusty allies such as China and Pakistan turn their back on North Korea, with Russia possibly lending a friendly word of advice, Pyongyang will realise the game is up. Additional reporting by James Kynge in Beijing and Robert Cottrell in Moscow [http://news.ft.com/fttoday] Contact us | Help © Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2002. "FT" and "Financial Times" ***************************************************************** 26 Making a Case for a U.S. Invasion of Iraq The New York Times *October 22, 2002* *BOOKS OF THE TIMES | 'THE THREATENING STORM'* *By RICHARD BERNSTEIN* In "The Threatening Storm," Kenneth M. Pollack makes what is very likely the best and strongest case that can be made for invading Iraq. His argument is not that it is desirable to send 200,000 American troops to Baghdad, but that an invasion is the least bad option faced by the United States ? the only option that can solve what Mr. Pollack presents as a dangerous and deteriorating situation that will only get worse as long as the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein remains in power. It is fair to say that whatever your feelings about the question of Iraq, you owe it to yourself to read Mr. Pollack's book, which is both hawkish and judicious. Its essential argument is that the containment policy followed since the Persian Gulf war of 1991 ? consisting of economic sanctions, a continued American military presence in the Persian Gulf and United Nations weapons inspections ? is fast eroding. Sanctions are being circumvented by the rampant smuggling of Iraqi oil. The presence of American troops in the region, especially in Saudi Arabia, is breeding local resentment. Meanwhile, the most important element in the containment policy, United Nations inspection teams searching for and destroying Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, ceased in 1998 and, in Mr. Pollack's view, is not likely to be effective even if revived. What to do? Mr. Pollack reviews all the options, from doing essentially nothing to a military effort relying on anti-Hussein Iraqi resistance forces supported by devastating air strikes, somewhat like what was done with the Northern Alliance and the Taliban in Afghanistan. He reviews the pluses and minuses of each of the options, giving due weight to opinions contrary to his own, and then concludes: "The only prudent and realistic course of action left to the United States is to mount a full-scale invasion of Iraq to smash the Iraqi armed forces, depose Saddam's regime and rid the country of weapons of mass destruction." Mr. Pollack spent the 90's studying this issue, first as an analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency and then as director of gulf affairs for the National Security Council. He is a man, in short, who knows his subject, and the implications of what he is arguing, most important the deaths of American soldiers and the expenditure of billions of dollars. "Every time I say or write this, I find myself wondering whether it is truly necessary," he declares of his pro-invasion conclusion. In this sense, his book reconstructs his own experience in studying the question of Iraq and how he arrived, even somewhat reluctantly, at his overall conclusion. This does not mean that it is impossible to detect weaknesses in his argument. Mr. Pollack waxes positively rhapsodic about the benefits that would accrue once a democratic, pro-Western Iraq has arisen from Saddam Hussein's ashes, but while, as always, he demonstrates an awareness of the risks and costs of the nation-building that would be required, he glides a bit lightly over them. Put another way: he has no confidence in the ability of Western public opinion to pursue a containment policy over the long term, but he seems to have no doubt about the ability of public opinion to stay the course after Mr. Hussein has been safely disposed of. More generally perhaps, those who oppose an invasion will find that Mr. Pollack is more attuned to the dangers posed by an Iraq seeking nuclear weapons than he is to the dangers of an essentially unilateral invasion. On the other hand, for those who have faith that a newly conceived, intrusive United Nations weapons-inspection regime can do the job will meet a tough challenge in this book. Mr. Pollack contends that any such effort would be a dangerous trap. Mr. Hussein would surely cooperate if troops were massed on his border and an invasion was otherwise unavoidable, but it would take far longer for inspections to work than it would be possible to maintain the credible threat of an invasion. "All Saddam would need to do is wait until we were forced to start scaling back our forces in the region, and as the threat receded he would return to his past tactic of `cheat and retreat' with the inspectors that served him so well in 1991-98," Mr. Pollack writes. Other matters are dealt with: Mr. Pollack measures the likelihood of a military success and what the best-case and worst-case American losses would be. He analyzes the attitudes of important other countries. He graphically describes the "pervasive climate of terror throughout the country, which is the linchpin of Iraqi totalitarianism." In short, Mr. Pollack has written a timely book that should be read as the public debate on Iraq continues. Copyright The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 27 Bush's Armageddon Obsession Michael Ortiz Hill: Megiddo, Armageddon and Bush [http://www.counterpunch.org/] / October 19, 2002 The Looking Glass War by MICHAEL ORTIZ HILL I'd become accustomed to George W. Bush's use of the word evil until he told the nation this last spring, "The evil one is among us." Anyone with a passing understanding of the evangelical world of Bush' faith knows he was referring to the Antichrist. The implications of this are grave beyond telling and yet scarcely ever noted in the public discourse. On the eve of a misguided war the Commander in Chief of the most powerful military force in human history has located American foreign policy within a Biblical narrative that leads inexorably towards the plains of Megiddo, roughly fifty five miles northwest of Jerusalem: the battle of Armageddon. Two essential questions, as impertinent as they are imperative, need to be asked: Mr. President, as a born-again Christian is it not true that you regard this as the end times prophesied in the Bible? In what way does your religious understanding of apocalypse inform American policy in the Mideast? There are many aspects to the fundamentalist understanding of the end of days not the least being the conversion of the Jews to the true Messiah before the final battle. In Bush' political autobiography (A Charge to Keep) he places himself squarely in the mainstream of evangelical thought. Recounting his pilgrimage to the Holy Land Bush writes of entering into the waters of Galilee in the apparent baptism of "a Jewish friend. " It was then that the hymn came to his mind: Now the time is approaching By prophets long foretold When all shall dwell together One Shepherd and one fold Now Jew and Gentile meeting From many a distant shore Around an altar kneeling One common Lord adore I don't know if the president has read Hal Lindsey, but much of what he says shows a similar perspective. Having sold fifteen million copies Lindseys' book The Late Great Planet Earth remains the most influential text shaping fundamentalist thought on apocalyptic matters. Written within the geopolitical fantasies of the Cold War Lindsey writes, " As Armageddon begins with the invasion of Israel by the Arabs and the Russian confederacy, and their consequent swift destruction, the greatest period of Jewish conversion to their true Messiah will begin. " I'd rather not believe that Bush is moving according to Lindseys' game plan but the simple fact is that we don't know. The administration systematic alienation of our Arab allies (soon leaving Israel as our only viable ally in the Mideast) raises disturbing questions. Lindseys' book influenced not only American fundamentalist culture but had a pervasive effect on fundamentalist Islams' apocalyptic worldview. According to David Cook, the American expert on Islamic apocalyptic literature, until the late eighties this element of Muslim culture had been fairly static for centuries. " The contemporary Muslim," says Cook, " sees the present world turned upside down by Christian millennialism.... In defense, Muslims make heavy use of the Bible, or one might say the Bible as seen through the eyes of Hal Lindsey. There are Muslim readings of the book of Daniel, Ezekial and Revelation. The only difference is the 'good guys' are Muslims, not Christians." This strange cross-fertilization between cultures has placed us in the situation in which the current administration and Radical Islam share a common worldview in which peace descends after Evil is defeated in an apocalyptic battle. Both parties sing the same song: God will lead our warriors to victory against the forces of darkness. We are at an extraordinary and critical historical moment. When Bush was in Germany trying to garner support for invading Iraq the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Pentagon leaked its unanimous objection. More recently Brent Scowcroft, the elder statesman of the Republican foreign policy establishment declared that Bush' plans could unleash "an Armageddon in the Middle East." " The comments of Mr. Scowcroft and others in the Republican foreign policy establishment," writes the New York Times, "appears to be a loosely coordinated effort."On the domestic front it seems that both the Pentagon and significant figures in the Republican party (Scowcroft, Kissinger, House majority leader Dick Armey) are attempting to rein in a rogue president before American men and women begin coming home in body bags. On the foreign front the U.S. is facing near universal opposition by our European allies and complete opposition from the Arab world, including Kuwait and the Iraqi Kurds who have suffered so much under Saddam Hussein. The religious underpinnings of Bush's war against evil are evident as is the absolutist theology he shares with Radical Islam. Both of them see such wars as we may be facing right now as righteous, good and necessary. It is clear, we should be afraid for we are profoundly endangered by the passions of both Christian and Muslim fundamentalisms. This essay and its companion "Overcoming Terrorism: A Twelve Step Approach" can be read at www.gatheringin.com. Given the gravity of the world situation the author encourages readers to circulate this freely. Michael Hill Ortiz can be reached at: [michaelortizhill@earthlink.net] ***************************************************************** 28 Boxer Defends Vote Against War in Iraq Published on Tuesday, October 22, 2002 By CHRISTINE M. DELUCIA Contributing Writer Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) defended her vote against using force in Iraq last night and told a crowd at Harvard Law School (HLS) that the Bush administration is exploiting the Iraq issue for political gain. The second-term senator was one of 23 to vote against a resolution earlier this month granting Bush wide latitude in dealing with Iraq. “I have voted twice to use force, and I’m not afraid to use force,†she said, referring to measures dealing with Kosovo and following Sept. 11. “But to me, it’s a last resort, not a first resort, and I need to have answers to questions first.†“To me, it wasn’t a hard call,†she said. “I had 20 to 35 completely unanswered questions.†She also expressed caution about using force after North Korea’s revelation that it has a nuclear weapons program. “I’m hopeful we can defuse things diplomatically,†she said. “Might doesn’t make right. Might should back up right.†In last night’s speech, hosted by the HLS Democrats, Boxer accused the Bush administration of timing the Iraq debate for political advantage. “The timing was because of the elections,†said Boxer, who is up for reelection in 2004. “It was all part of a grand plan by the Bush administration to get the Senate.†Boxer, a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, chairs the subcommittee in charge of Superfund and other toxic waste management programs. She urged audience members to not lose sight of domestic issues at election time and advised voters to consider issues such as minimum wage and Arctic drilling before voting. “We need to win this election,†she told the audience of more than 100, which mainly consisted of law students and Democratic supporters. “We need to check and balance this administration that is wrong on the issues that affect our lives.†Disillusioned Democrats should think twice before voting for a third party, she said. “Think about the ramifications,†she said in response to a question about potential Green Party voters. “Don’t give up on the party. You will hand-deliver this country to the John Ashcrofts, the Clarence Thomases.†“We have to get our message out, make [voters] understand what’s at stake,†she said. “It’s a matter of us campaigning, making a connection between the quality of life and who’s in office.†E. Garry Grundy, a student at the Divinity School and the Law School, said he was pleased with the way Boxer handled criticism and questions about the state of the Democratic Party. “She was very nurturing towards people like myself, Democrats who’ve become alienated,†he said. But law student Leilani K. Knight found Boxer’s aggressive stumping for the Democrats unsettling. “She was very hard on the Green Party,†Knight said, “and I don’t think it’s fair to say that Greens aren’t strong on social issues.†Copyright © 2002, The Harvard Crimson Inc. | Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 29 US judge orders release of Cheney energy papers Planet Ark : USA: October 21, 2002 WASHINGTON - A federal judge last week ordered the Bush administration to produce documents from Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force by Nov. 5, rejecting arguments they should stay secret because they relate to top advisers. Justice Department lawyers said they would seek a suspension of the order from U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, and failing that, would consider appealing the order to a higher court. Sullivan's ruling came in a lawsuit brought over a year ago by government ethics watchdog group, Judicial Watch, that was later joined by the environmental group Sierra Club. They seek records of the Cheney task force in an effort to find out what influence energy companies, including the now-bankrupt Enron Corp., had on policy. The Bush administration has released thousands of pages of papers under a pre-trial fact-finding plan, but is refusing to hand over documents that relate specifically to Cheney and several senior White House advisers. The advisers are Andrew Lundquist, the former White House energy policy director; White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey and White House deputy chief of staff Josh Bolten. The government argued last month that the documents involve communications between President George W. Bush and his closest advisers, and that to turn them over would raise concerns about the separation of powers. Sullivan rejected this argument. But he did say government lawyers could submit a "privilege log," giving them another chance to claim some of the papers are not subject to public disclosure, so long as a reason is given for each document that is withheld. The judge brushed aside a statement by Justice Department attorney Shannen Coffin that government lawyers were not ready to produce the disputed documents, calling that a "startling revelation" after so many months of lawsuits seeking the papers by various groups. Cheney's energy task force produced a policy paper in May 2001 that called for more oil and gas drilling and a revived nuclear power program. Environmentalists say they were largely shut out of the policy-making. The General Accounting Office also filed suit in February demanding that Cheney hand over a list of energy industry executives who were consulted as the energy policy was drafted last year. Arguments were heard in that case last month before U.S. District Court Judge John Bates, but he has not ruled. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 30 Seoul criticized for sweeping information on North Korean nukes under carpet Korea Herald!!_National http://www.koreaherald.com The South Korean government came under fire yesterday for allegedly withholding intelligence about North Korea's secret nuclear program, which it obtained and provided the United States with three years ago. The Defense Ministry admitted that it had learnt of North Korea's attempt to import uranium-enhancing equipment from abroad in 1999. "The 1999 intelligence was rudimentary. The government handed the information to the United States and proposed that the two sides secure and share additional intelligence," said Brig. Gen. Hwang Eui-don, a ministry spokesman. On Friday, Defense Ministry Lee Jun reported the fact during a closed-door session of the parliamentary defense committee. "The Korean and U.S. administrations maintained close consultation on the issue. Our government became aware of the seriousness of the North's uranium-based nuclear program this August when John Bolton, U.S. undersecretary of state on arms control, offered 'decisive' evidence," Hwang said. He declined to elaborate on or disclose the source of the intelligence. A high-profile North Korean defector's testimony was one of the clues to the North's covert program, according to Hwang. Kim Duk-hong, a close aide to Hwang Jang-yop, former North Korean ruling party secretary who defected to the South, said that Pyongyang had already developed nuclear weapons using uranium, instead of plutonium, in an interview with a Japanese weekly magazine in April 1999. "It could be said that parts of the interview were similar to intelligence we had," Hwang said. The majority Grand National Party (GNP) criticized the government for hiding knowledge of the North's nuclear program for three years for fear of damaging President Kim Dae-jung's "sunshine policy" of engaging the communist North. The party raised suspicions that North Korea might have appropriated proceeds from inter-Korean tourism projects to finance the nuclear weapons program. "It is shocking that the government has covered up the North's nuclear program for such a long period of time while continuing to pursue the sunshine policy," GNP Chairman Suh Chung-won said. "The $400 million that Hyundai paid the North in connection with the Mt. Geumgang tourism business and another $400 million the government offered the North secretly through Hyundai Merchant Marine may have been funneled into the North Korean project," he said. The GNP leader urged the government and Hyundai to put an end to the inter-Korean tourism business and apologize to the public. Rep. Lee Bu-young maintained that the North's nuclear program started in earnest after the Kim administration took office. "North Korea should clarify how it has financed the nuclear development project, which is said to cost more than $1 billion," Lee said. Nam Kyung-pil, a GNP spokesman, accused the government of criminal behavior for abetting the enemy and demanded President Kim apologize and punish those who covered up the intelligence and gave financial aid. Nam indicated that the GNP is considering demanding a National Assembly investigation into the issue. (jjhwang@koreaherald.co.kr) By Hwang Jang-jin Staff reporter 2002.10.22 (C) Copyright 2000 Digital Korea Herald. All rights reserved. <#> ©2001 ASHEVILLE CITIZEN-TIMES 14 O.HENRY AVE., ASHEVILLE, NC 28801, PHONE: 828-252-5611 USE OF THIS SITE SIGNIFIES YOUR AGREEMENT TO THE TERMS OF SERVICE THE ASHEVILLE CITIZEN-TIMES IS A GANNETT NEWSPAPER ALONG WITH USA TODAY . ***************************************************************** 38 Purdue to help design research reactors October 22, 2002 *(WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind., October 22nd, 2002, 10 a.m.)* -- Purdue is among four universities that are part of a federally-funded effort to design nuclear reactors for research and education. Professor Jack Brenizer is the chair of nuclear engineering at Penn State, which is part of the research effort. Brenizer says it's common for people to think nuclear energy is dead. But he says many existing power reactors have filed for license extensions, and electricity produced by nuclear power is slightly cheaper than that from other fuels. The research group also includes the universities of Illinois and Wisconsin. It's funded by the Energy Department and will receive nearly two (m) million dollars per year for five years. Professors say scientific advances have created new ways for using research reactors in medicine and nuclear physics. /(Copyright 2002 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)/ ***************************************************************** 39 DPRK Says Nuke Issue Can be Resolved Through Dialogue Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Monday, October 21, 2002 DPRK's No. 2 leader Kim Yong Nam said Monday that Pyongyang is willing to resolve concerns over its nuclear weapons program through dialogue, according to South Korean media reports. The reports said Kim, chairman of the Presidium of DPRK's Supreme People's Assembly, made the remarks in a meeting with a South Korean delegation lead by Unification Minister Jeong Se Hyun on the sidelines of inter-Korean ministerial talks. Kim also reportedly said that once the United States stops treating North Korea like an enemy, then that country's concerns over security will be eased. Yonhap News Agency quoted Jeong as urging in some 40 minutes of talks with Kim that Pyongyang take acceptable measures to address concerns about its acknowledged nuclear weapons program. The South Korean delegation flew to Pyongyang Saturday for talks with the North through Tuesday. Tensions have run high on the Korean Peninsula after the U.S. announced last week that DPRK officials earlier this month admitted running a covert nuclear weapons program using highly enriched uranium. Meanwhile, a senior South Korean Defense Ministry official said his country obtained military intelligence in 1999 that the North was pushing for a nuclear weapons program using enriched uranium, according to Yonhap News Agency. Defense Minister Lee Jun reported to a parliamentary defense committee last Friday about his ministry's having obtained such information on the North's secret nuclear program in 1999, the official reportedly said. But they also said that they believe DPRK does not possess nuclear weapons at this time and that it will take several more years to complete work on nuclear weapons. The U.S. State Department said last week that North Korea acknowledged it has a secret program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons when U.S. special envoy James Kelly, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, visited Pyongyang on Oct. 3-5. Source: Agencies Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 40 World Biggest Nuclear Power Giant Opens Beijing Office Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Monday, October 21, 2002 The Areva Group, the world's biggest nuclear-energy giant, opened its China representative office in Beijing at the weekend to better explore the huge market potential in the country. Anne Lauvergeon, chairwoman of the group's executive board, said that the French state-owned nuclear holding company sees the establishment of the China office as the result of a long history of co-operation with the Chinese nuclear-power industry and the expression of the group's strong desire to remain close to the world's most populous market. "The immense China market is of great importance for us. We established our Beijing office in order to further facilitate our increasing businesses in China and rev up Areva's localization process in the country," said Lauvergeon. Areva has been heavily involved in China's nuclear-power industry for more than a decade. The group has - through trade in equipment and technology transfers by Cogema and Framatome ANP (Advanced Nuclear Power), now nuclear subsidiaries of the group - established a distinct presence in all three commercial nuclear-power plants in the country - Daya Bay, Ling'ao near Shenzhen in South China's Guangdong Province and Qinshan in East China's Zhejiang Province on the east coast. Approximately US$2 billion worth of contracts have been clinched by Areva and previously by Framatome to supply equipment for the Daya Bay and Ling'ao power plants over the past 17 years, according to Rene de Preneuf, general representative of the Areva China office. Areva was launched in September 2001, based on the combined forces of the French atomic-energy authority CEA-Industrie, Cogema and Framatome and Framatome Connectors International. Xu Yuming, deputy director of the China Atomic Energy Authority, said: "Developing nuclear energy is a necessary option for China to refine its energy mix and reduce pollution. "We have been working closely with Areva and its predecessors in developing our nuclear-power industry and we look forward to further co-operation with the company," said Xu. Areva, also among the world's top three producers of connectors for information technology, telecommunications and automobile companies, hopes that its connectors business in China will grow as well after the launch of its Beijing office. In response to a news report last week that Areva was considering selling its connectors business, Lauvergeon told China Daily in an exclusive interview that her company will not take such action any time soon. "The connectors business is operating in a difficult context, given the continuing slump in the world's telecom market. But we hope the connectors sector will break even by the end of 2003," said Lauvergeon. She said Areva would not change its strategy in operating its connectors business in China, which is estimated to be worth millions of US dollars. China-built Nuclear Generator Unit Operational China Develops Nuclear Powered Heating and Desalination System China's Nuclear Power Domestication onto a New Stage Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 41 Valley power to get boost of juice Post-Crescent - Posted Oct. 21, 2002 By Myrna Collins Post-Crescent staff writer FOREST JUNCTION — The Fox Valley area will get a boost of power in the spring when a new substation is completed and new towers and transmission lines are in place. “We want to have it finished in time for the air-conditioning season,” Al Bayer, project manager for American Transmission Co., Waukesha, said. Power lines in the $36.5 million Forest Junction Reliability Project will run 22 miles, from Forest Junction to Brown County V, just south of Allouez. “Even though the lines go to Brown County, additional power will be made available to the whole region, including Appleton,” Bayer said. They will replace transmission lines that are 75 years old. The substation, on Holmes Road in the Town of Brillion, is adjacent to the present substation, which will be razed at the end of the project, Bayer said. The brick building at that site will remain for support of a We Energies microwave tower, he said. The project fit well within the goals of Calumet County, according to Planning and Zoning Committee Chairman George Holzknecht Jr. “We need to be doing things for the public, to be providing expanded services, and that is just what this project is doing,” he said. The Town of Brillion will receive $51,000 and Calumet County $102,000 in shared revenue because of the plant, according to American Transmission Co. Construction of the transmission lines, about 60 percent complete, has resumed after a break during the summer. Bayer said the work is done in the winter because it does the least environmental damage when the land is frozen. The new power source will be Point Beach Nuclear Plant at Two Rivers. The substation also will have the capability of accepting other new sources, such as the proposed generating plant in Freedom or the Town of Kaukauna, Bayer said. Approval of the Fox Energy plant is pending before the state Public Service Commission. The exact amount of additional power that will be passed through the substation cannot be determined in advance, Bayer said. Myrna Collins can be reached at 920-993-1000, ext. 283, or by e-mail at mcollins@postcrescent.com Front Page [http://www.postcrescent.com] | News ***************************************************************** 42 Campus to install warning sirens (DiamondbackOnline.com) Oct 21, 2002 By Dan Wilcock For The Diamondback Three high-powered emergency sirens like the one pictured here will be placed across the campus within the next six weeks. Federal Systems Corporation High-power emergency warning sirens which will sound in the case of life-threatening emergencies, will be installed and tested on the campus within the next six weeks, according to University Police. Sirens will be installed on the roofs of the Benjamin Building, the Computer and Space Sciences and Service buildings. Each siren produces an air-raid type signal covering four square miles. The cost of the entire system is about $100,000. "The sirens would notify the community of life-threatening emergencies," said University Police Maj. Jay Gruber. "This would include severe weather such as tornadoes or hurricanes, but it could also be used if there was a chemical or biological threat. It's going to be so loud that no one outside should miss it." Most people in above-ground classrooms and offices would hear the signal, Gruber said. Students, faculty, staff and community members are advised to immediately seek shelter and then seek emergency information upon hearing the signal. Most buildings on the campus, particularly high-rise buildings, including McKeldin Library, are suitable shelters, Gruber said. Moveable structures, such as trailers are to be avoided. Inside, people should move away from glass windows to inner hallways or basements. Information providing further instructions should be sought via e-mail or radio, Gruber said. Each siren bell measures 55 by 41 inches and weighs more than 400 pounds. "It's basically an air-raid siren," said Ermanno DiLorenzo, manufacturer's representative for Federal Signal Corporation. Federal Signal Corporation manufactures the 2001 Siren, the model that will be installed on the campus. Each siren registers at 128 decibels at 100 feet and 70 decibels at the edge of the four-square mile area it covers, according to DiLorenzo. To put that range of sound into perspective, 70 decibels is the equivalent of a person speaking one inch away from another person's ear. 130 decibels is the equivalent of the sound of a jet taking off heard from 200 feet away. WeatherData Corporation of Wichita, Kan., provides private emergency weather updates specific to the university. The university acquired this service in the aftermath of last year's tornado. "In the tornado of 2001 we were warning Washington, D.C., public schools when the government was saying the storm was weakening," said Mike Smith, CEO of WeatherData. "We knew the tornado would threaten the area." WeatherData uses private equipment in its Wichita headquarters to track weather developments. In an emergency, WeatherData alerts the university with a fax, text messages to police cell phones and a telephone call. The university communications center, which also handles 911 calls, will then activate the sirens. If the communications center is somehow disabled, the sirens can also be activated by the security operations center that monitors the campus's security cameras, Gruber said. "We're not exposing anybody to anything dangerous," said DiLorenzo. DiLorenzo consulted the university on where to locate the sirens to achieve maximum coverage. "Those sirens are more than enough to cover the entire campus," said DiLorenzo. University police are undecided as to when they should test the new system. "We are currently debating testing the sirens when everyone is here so they get to hear what it sounds like or testing it on a day like Sunday when we aren't disturbing people. But that way many people would not know what it sounds like," Gruber said. The siren will have a steady sound signal. For the listener, the sound will increase and decrease as the siren bell revolves around its pole. The sirens will be visible from the ground. The facilities council budget allotted $104,200 during the 2002 fiscal year that ended June 30. "The proposal came through campus crisis management, chaired by Dr. Linda Clement, vice president for student affairs. It was reviewed by the cabinet, then went to the facilities council for final approval and funding," said Sylvia Stewart, the university's interim vice-president for administrative affairs. "It's a very small amount of money to ensure public safety. "This is not a weather warning system. It is an emergency warning system," said Stewart. "I don't anticipate it would be used very often." The sirens will arrive on the campus in the wake of a tornado that killed two students, extensively damaged several university buildings and devastated the university community on Sept. 24, 2001. That tornado was not an isolated incident. A tornado struck La Plata, Md., on Apr. 28, killing three people, injuring 122 and causing $100 million in damages in the state, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Siren systems are used in many towns and campuses throughout the Midwest, known as Tornado Alley, due to the high frequency of tornados. However, siren systems are rare in the mid-Atlantic region. "I haven't seen any other universities in the area that have this," said University Police Maj. Mark Sparks. Clemson University has emergency sirens because of its proximity to a nuclear plant. Henry Gordon, the emergency management director for Oconee County, S.C., where Clemson is located, controls the university's 35 sirens, which are designed to alarm people of a nuclear disaster or a weather emergency. Gordon said he's never had to activate the sirens other than to test them. The sirens at Clemson are tested silently every week and tested out loud four times a year. Every time an out-loud test occurs, a few people fail to learn about the test beforehand, said Gordon. "There's always a few people that call in and want to know what's going on," Gordon said. Many university students and College Park residents said the sirens seemed like a worthwhile investment. "If it saves a life it's a good idea in the end," said senior finance major Andy White. However, others expressed concerns about the sirens' effectiveness. "It's a waste of money," said David Dorado, a University College student who lives on Knox Road. "They will just make people panic. If there's a tornado, people are going to get hurt whether they know about it or not. It's a way of promoting panic and it's a bad idea. Yet if people feel safer and if it makes parents and students happy, maybe they should do it." DiamondbackOnline.com ***************************************************************** 43 Minister supports Lucas Heights terror safety. 21/10/2002. ABC News Online The Federal Science Minister Peter McGauran says storage at the Lucas Heights nuclear research reactor is sufficient to withstand the most serious explosions. A former adviser to Mr McGauran is reported to have raised concerns about security at the site saying it is woefully inadequate. Michael Selley says hundreds of spent fuel rods are being stored in a "tin shed" near the perimeter fence. But Mr McGauran says the rods are not just lying on shelves but stored very securely. "Moreover, even if, hypothetically, an explosion was detonated, the spent fuel rods are in ceramic form. "So you would just explode some metal, you would not be releasing dust or liquid which would escape into the environment," he said. © 2002 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ***************************************************************** 44 NUCLEAR-PLANT SECURITY Opinion, Editorials, Columns: The Press of Atlantic City October 21, 2002 More firepower Six years ago, state Sen. Leonard Connors introduced a bill that would better arm security guards at nuclear plants in New Jersey. The bill went nowhere. That was a time when you couldn't convince legislators that the guards needed to carry fully loaded semiautomatic weapons that fire hollow-point bullets, a weapon banned in New Jersey for everyone but police officers. But Sept. 11, 2001, changed things. The Board of Freeholders in Ocean County, home to the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, recently passed a resolution endorsing Connors' idea, which the senator says has been locked up in committee and tossed around ever since it was introduced. With certain precautions, this is an idea that should not linger any longer. Terrorists may never attack a nuclear plant, but not taking reasonable steps to defend or deter such an attack is reckless. Connors says the guards now carry semiautomatic weapons, but they are limited to 10 rounds of ammunition. He says more firepower and more advanced guns are necessary because that's what the enemy would carry. And if the weapons are OK for police officers, he argues, why shouldn't the nuclear-plant guards have them to protect us? Connors points out that New Jersey is the only state where nuclear-plant security can't carry the weapons. The arguments are valid, but the inherent danger of the weapons demands certain safeguards. Under Connors' bill, the assault weapons would be locked away at the nuclear facilities when the guards go off duty. There should also be a stringent emphasis on training and background checks. But with all that in place, the weapons - once disregarded as as an overreaction to an unlikely threat - would add to the security that terrible events have shown to be a necessity. ***************************************************************** 45 Enewetak: Mike Shot 50 years later Ka Leo O Hawaii - By Joshua Gefroh Ka Leo Staff Writer October 21, 2002 The 50th anniversary of the world's first hydrogen bomb test, which occurred on Nov. 1, 1952 on an atoll 2,500 miles southwest of Honolulu, is being observed amidst a global debate over Iraq's potential nuclear threat and as nuclear development programs in China, India, Pakistan and North Korea continue to flourish. While these may be new kinds of nuclear threats, the first hydrogen weapon test, code named "Mike Shot," remains a bellwether in demonstrating the dangerous and persistent ill effects of weapons of mass destruction. What happened on Enewetak Atoll, which is only a 5-hour flight from Hawai'i, "and the devastating consequences of the world's first hydrogen bomb to the land and to the environment of Enewetak is a timely discussion and worth considering when we are now considering what to do with Iraq," Davor Pevec, an attorney representing the Enewetak people, said during an Oct. 8 presentation at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. The 10.4-megaton "Mike Shot" created an explosion 750 times more powerful than that which annihilated Hiroshima in 1945, Pevec said. It kept the United States ahead of the Soviet Union in nuclear ability, leading to a policy of terms that kept the two countries at bay and ultimately helped the United States win the Cold War. But it left behind a legacy of suffering and unresolved promises. "We have to bear in mind that if we affect other peoples by engaging in this kind of activity, the price we need to pay is to make them whole," Pevec said. "For the people of the Marshall Islands, the social consequences were severe and deep, and they have yet to be properly compensated," he said. "They have yet to be able to live the lives that they could have been living had this not occurred. Their land is not fully usable, and they can't live a traditional lifestyle because of that." A Department of Energy report, released in 1982, described a slice of that severity: "The immense ball of flame, cloud of dark dust, evaporated steel tower, melted sand for 1,000 feet, 10 million tons of water rising out of the lagoon, waves subsiding from a height of 80 feet to seven feet in 3 miles, were all repeated in various degrees, 43 times on Enewetak." While South Pacific nuclear testing began in 1946 with "Operation Crossroads" at Bikini Atoll, also in the Marshall Islands, Enewetak was better situated to accommodate the large aircraft needed to move the materials and 11,000 people involved in setting up the "Mike Shot." It was the ideal ground zero for a hydrogen bomb with a 3-mile-wide fireball, except it was inhabited. So, in December 1947, the entire population of Enewetak waved what they thought would be a temporary goodbye to the home that generations of Enewetakese had labored to make habitable. The U.S. Navy moved the 145 inhabitants of the atoll 120 miles southwest to the smaller, resource-poor Ujelang Atoll. At the time, they were told that they would be able to return to Enewetak fairly soon after the tests were completed — perhaps in three to five years — according to an affidavit, written nearly 30 years after the Enewetakese had been moved from their island by Capt. John P.W. Vest, the U.S. military governor for the Marshall Islands who was partly responsible for relocating the Enewetakese. "It certainly was not in my mind that it would be longer than that, or the taking of Enewetak for the testing program was permanent," Vest wrote. Three years passed, then five, then 33, as the Enewetakese waited in exile. According to Vest's affidavit, he was assured that the U.S. Navy would provide the Enewetakese with food, health care and education, which were included in the special privileges afforded them as wards of the United States, while on Ujelang Atoll. But the hardship and suffering for the Enewatakese began around 1950, following the Navy's departure from maintaining a weather station there, and to some degree still exists, according to anthropologist Laurence M. Carucci. Carucci spent two years in the late 1970s living among the Enewetak people on Ujelang and described their lives in the report "Ien Entaan im Jerata: Times of Suffering and Ill Fortune." "On Ujelang, they (the Enewetak) came to feel that they had been totally abandoned," he wrote. Truman ordered atoll evacuation A top-secret executive directive signed by President Harry Truman on Nov. 25, 1947 ordered "the evacuation of the natives of Eniwetok (sic) Atoll." But, the directive also included a memorandum by the Atomic Energy Commission that said of the Enewetakese: "They will be accorded all rights which are the normal constitutional rights of the citizens under the Constitution, but will be dealt with as wards of the United States for whom this country has special responsibilities." It went on to say that their displacement "will be kept to a minimum required for their own safety and well-being, and will not be accomplished merely for considerations of convenience." Finally, it stated that their displacement will be upon "agreements reached with them regarding resettlement, including fully adequate provisions for their well-being in their new locations." An Enewetak woman in her 40s told Carucci in 1978: "In those days, the wailing across the village was constant. Many children and old ones died as a result of those times of danger." Indeed, epidemics of polio and measles spread through the village, and they lived among a rat infestation, Carucci said. Renny Robert, an Enewetak council member, said at a Honolulu news conference at the Capitol building in 2000 that when the Enewetakese woke up in the morning, rats would be biting at their fingers and toes. "It was unimaginable," she told reporters, according to the Asia Times. "It was inhumane." [end of article dingbat] © 2002 Ka Leo O Hawaii ***************************************************************** 46 Nuclear Fallout MotherJones.com | News October 21 [War Watch] Justifying the Bush Administration's divergent tactics on Iraq and North Korea, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfovitz tells [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53209-2002Oct19.html] Glenn Kessler and Peter Slevin of the Washington Post: "'To the best of my knowledge, Saddam Hussein is the only world leader who openly glorified the attacks of September 11th,' adding that such 'clearly expressed animosity to the United States' is not visible in North Korea. 'The North Koreans are desperately in need of help from the outside,' Wolfowitz said. 'We have leverage on North Korea that we do not have on Iraq.'" The Post article also highlights the admnistration's response to the North Korean situation as a rare case of multilateralism, noting that the White House has acted in concert with two key allies -- South Korea and Japan -- that have a great deal at stake. Robyn Lim, writing in the International Herald Tribune, claims that North Korea is ultimately a greater threat than Iraq, but argues that deference to (and fear of) China is the real reason the Bush administration is keeping its saber rattling in East Asia to a minimum. "It is North Korea, not Iraq, that is developing missiles which soon will be able to reach the continental United States. North Korea is also the world's worst missile proliferator, contributing to the missile programs of Iran, Syria and others... And North Korea is believed to possess one or two nuclear weapons, as well as a chemical and biological arsenal." Yet, "North Korea is last on the axis because it is the hardest target. The United States can deal with Iraq on its own by military intervention, but that is much harder to do in relation to North Korea.... The United States cannot ignore the interests of China, North Korea's neighbor and quasi ally. China is a great power, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and it has nuclear weapons.... America's vital interest in East Asia is to secure a balance of power that suits its interests, not to provoke an unnecessary war with China." Elsewhere, the Times of India handicaps the (un)likelihood of U.S. reprisals against Pakistan for reportedly providing Pyongyang with nuclear technology in return for missile know-how: "The Bush Administration... can be expected to once again gloss over Islamabad's role to retain the 'support' of its ally in the war on terrorism." Dislosure, Delayed A separate article in the Washington Post carries news that many congressional Democrats are steamed [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49358-2002Oct18.html] about the White House's decision to sit on the North Korea nuclear news for nearly two weeks. "Democrats on Capitol Hill were critical," reports the Post, "of the 12-day gap between the admission by North Korea and the administration's disclosure. During that time, Congress passed the Iraq resolution, and President Bush signed it hours before the 7 p.m. disclosure about North Korea." But the report goes on to suggest that the Bush administration would have kept the kibosh on the nuclear news much longer, if meddling Clintonites hadn't interfered. "Administration officials said they revealed the information because former Clinton administration officials had leaked the news after learning about it from State Department contacts," the Post reports. A Democratic congressional aide is quoted as saying: "This cloud of secrecy raises questions about whether there are other pieces to this puzzle they don't know about." Stuck in the Iraqi Spin Cycle Franklin Foer delivers a little inside baseball in The New Republic, reporting on the art of reporting inside Iraq, [http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021028&s=foer102802] where soliciting a too-candid criticism of the Iraqi regime can get a source murdered, and where too many journalists follow the path of least resistance -- and end up parroting Iraqi propaganda: "One journalist described to me an anti-American demonstration held last April in Baghdad to celebrate Saddam's sixty-fifth birthday. She saw the same high school students pass by several times, simulating an endless stream of angry protesters. When her colleagues turned their cameras on, officials with bullhorns instructed the crowd to increase the volume of their chants. 'Everyone knows they're a sham,' says the journalist. 'But CNN in Atlanta is telling Nic Robertson that he has to file a story. He doesn't have anything else to work with. So he shows the demonstration.' " Foer suggests that "there are alternatives to mindlessly reciting Baghdad's spin." Instead of focusing on Baghdad, Foer says the media could "scour Kurdistan and Jordan, where there are many recently arrived Iraqis who can talk freely." Taking up the same theme in a Los Angeles Times op-ed, [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ghitis16oct16,0,1183454.s tory?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcomment%2Dopinions] Frida Ghitis draws on her own experience as a reporter in Baghdad in 1998, to give context to the recent reports out of Iraq: "The journalists reporting this week on the landslide reelection of Hussein face the task of telling the truth when they have no access to it. That leaves the rest of us with a not very useful picture of what goes on in Iraq and with the dangerous temptation to interpret what we see to suit our own ideas. The reality is that no matter how much we read or how much is beamed to us every day, live from Baghdad, we know very little about what is happening, and even less about how the Iraqi people feel about a possible war on their soil." The Democrats' Debacle David Corn, writing on TomPaine.com, skewers the Democratic leadership, one by one, for their "sadly laughable" approach to the November elections, which has seen them rubber stamp the war-vote in a misbegotten bid to push domestic issues back to the fore: "Leading Democrats had a plan: vote in favor of the resolution authorizing George W. Bush to attack Iraq whenever and however he sees fit, and take the knotty issue of Iraq off the table in time to promote more Democratic-friendly topics before the congressional elections. And with less than three weeks to go to what will likely be another low turn-out Election DayÉthe national political debate is dominated by talk of pension fund reform, corporate responsibility, and extending unemployment benefits. That is, when the discourse has not focused on the Washington-area sniper [or] North Korea's nukes. Then there's the looming war against Iraq. "In other words, the voting-for-cover Democrats created little, if any, political space for their party's favorite subjects by essentially amending the Constitution to permit the President, rather than Congress, to declare war. " Bush's Un-Holy War Ed Vulliamy, reporting in the London Observer writes that "President George Bush's own Methodist church has launched a scathing attack on his preparations for war against Iraq, saying they are 'without any justification according to the teachings of Christ.' [http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,815626,00.html] " "Jim Winkler, head of social policy for United Methodists, added that all attempts at a 'dialogue' between the President and his own church over the war had fallen on deaf ears at the White House." Iraq's Suffering Cities Writing in the Boston Globe, Anthony Shadid describes the decrepit infrastructure of Iraqi cities andanticipates the humanitarian crises a U.S. attack is almost guaranteed to cause [http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/293/nation/War_would_crush_Iraqi_cities_anal ysts_say+.shtml] : "A US-led attack on Iraq would probably devastate the country's tattered and already overwhelmed infrastructure, shutting down power to hospitals and water treatment plants, cutting off drinking water almost immediately to millions of residents in Baghdad and possibly elsewhere, and pouring raw sewage into the streets within hours, aid workers and specialists say. 'It's going to be horrendous for lots and lots of people,' said a senior aid official in Baghdad and veteran of several other conflicts. 'People will be far more vulnerable to a future attack than before. They are much weaker, and they have little resilience.'" Rewarding the Nay-Sayers Evelyn Nieves [http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-a=00021673-sp00000000&sp-f=iso-8859-1&sp-q= Evelyn+Nieves] reports in The Washington Post that, for some congressional Democrats, pacifism is yielding dividends. A political action committee founded by the folks at MoveOn.org (you may remember them from their Lewinsky-era plea to censure Clinton and 'Move On') has raised more than $1 million for congressmen whose opposition to the war resolution may have jeopardized their re-election bids. "Sen. Paul D. Wellstone of Minnesota, Reps. Rick Larsen and Jay Inslee of Washington, and Rep. Rush D. Holt of New Jersey are being rewarded as 'heroes of the anti-war effort' with money to fight their opponents in these last two weeks before the election, said Peter Schurman, executive director of MoveOn.org, and a spokesman for the MoveOnPAC." - Tim Dickinson [Daily Briefing] FOREIGN NEWS Debating Zambia's GM Stand Is Zambia's rejection of genetically modified seeds provided by the US a principled stand against American bullying or an act of criminal negligence? The answer seems to depend on which side of the Atlantic you call home. With southern Africa suffering through its worst food crisis in years, Zambia's neighbors have agreed to accept American offers of GM corn. Zambia, citing health and environmental concerns, refused the corn outright -- even though three million Zambians are on the brink of starvation. Rory Carroll, writing in The Guardian, claims that the real issue here is the US policy of donating surplus GM food in lieu of cash [http://www.guardian.co.uk/famine/story/0,12128,813219,00.html] -- a policy which has prompted charges that the US is using famine to force controversial GM technology on countries too needy to refuse. Not surprisingly, anti-GM groups are taking the Zambian government's side. Noting that non-GM crops are readily available if Zambia only had the money to buy them, a press release from Greenpeace thundered, "the US donation was an ultimatum: 'eat our unwanted genetically engineered food or die.' [http://www.greenpeace.org/news/details?news%5fid=40528] " In the US, however, the Zambian response is drawing little official sympathy. The editors of The Detroit Free Press sum up the American view, declaring that starving Zambia doesn't have the luxury of rejecting aid of any kind [http://www.freep.com/voices/editorials/ezamb23_20020923.htm] : "It is tempting to dismiss as mere silliness the claim of Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa that genetically modified corn is poison. But the consequences are too tragic." POLITICS Gephardt's Economic Platform In another pre-election effort to draw the public's gaze from White House war plans back to the economy, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt has proposed a $200 billion economic stimulus package -- and is suggesting the legislation is required because the Bush administration and the Republican House have dropped the national economic ball. Unfortunately, the plan itself -- which entails $75 billion in working class tax cuts, and $125 billion in aid to suffering state governments -- is getting mixed reviews. The editorial board of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch argues that the proposal is too little, too late [http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/Editorial/CAE1764FDDE70 17286256C56003D6660?OpenDocument&Headline=Mr.%20Gephardt's%20recovery%20plan] : "The problem with this spending is that it will take many months of planning before hammers start swinging. By that time, the economy could be on the way to recovery and the extra spending would be overkill. The Federal Reserve said last month there is enough stimulus already in the pipeline to get the economy moving. It's just possible that the "What-me-worry?" attitude of the White House may turn out to be better policy than Mr. Gephardt is offering over the short term." While the plan's efficacy may matter less to election-minded Democrats than its political value, the Los Angeles Times argues that the Gephardt proposal won't make up for the lack of a coherent, coordinated Democratic approach [http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-ed-congress18oct18,0,54 12254.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dpe%2Dcalifornia] . "Democrats might wish that such fragmented measures amounted to a coherent alternative to the White House's chief economic aim of making its 10-year, $1.35-trillion tax cut permanent and fully abolishing the estate tax. But they are not enough.... Until Congress revisits the trillion-dollar issue, it can rearrange the furniture all it wants but a real housecleaning will never take place." ENVIRONMENT Persistant Pesticides Although their usage was made illegal years ago, many pesticides are still finding their way into everyday food products, André Picard of The Globe and Mail reports. A new report by San Francisco-based Pesticide Action Network reveals that roughly 20 percent of the food we ingest contains trace amounts of pesticides banned years -- even decades -- ago [http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/TGAM/20021015/UFOODN/H eadlines/headdex/headdexHealth_temp/5/5/13/] . The report says that banned chemicals such as DDT, dieldrin and dioxin were routinely found in popular foods such as salmon, cheese and cucumbers. And the report states that even well-rounded diets can deliver "up to 90 times the acceptable limit for exposure to a group of chemicals known as persistent organic pollutants," a designation for compounds that are "among the most insidiously dangerous" ever produced. A representative from the World Health Organization's chemical safety program, however, denies that those chemicals are harmful for most humans in the amounts cited by the Pesticide Action Network study. [.] This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress [http://www.motherjones.com/about/admin/index.html] , the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones [http://www.motherjones.com/about/philanthropy/index.html] , and gifts from generous readers like you. © 2002 The Foundation for National Progress ***************************************************************** 47 Germany has to find somewhere where to store its nuclear waste Science &Technology 22.10.2002 Not in my Back Yard... Germany has some 24,000 tons of highly radioactive waste to bury. Just where, however, is a problem still unsolved by the German government. The German environmental lobby may still be jubilant over plans by the current ruling Red-Green coalition to scrap nuclear power in Germany, but they still face the major problem of finding a place to store the country's nuclear waste. Over the weekend, the AKEnd - the aptly named “Arbeitskreis Endlagerâ€, a working group made up of 16 German top scientists got together to discuss this crucial issue in Berlin. Set up in 1999, the AKEnd was commissioned by Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin to find Germany’s atomic waste a final resting place. The group commissioned various year-long surveys, which it presented at a public forum. But despite the numerous meetings, debates and reports, a solutions has remained illusive. Volcanic regions ruled out It may be unclear as to exactly where Germany’s 24,000 tons of highly radioactive and 297,000 tons of less-radioactive nuclear waste can be stored, but scientists have at least settled on where it can’t go: The panel has ruled out volcanic regions and areas at risk from earthquakes. In addition, the panel has agreed on the geological conditions of the storage facility. Salt, Clay and Granite lands are all top of the list, regarded as stable enough ground in which to bury atomic matter. However, even here, there is disagreement as to how relatively safe each of these are. z One main problem is to find a place where the potentially lethal matter cannot fall into the hands of terrorists. Wherever it goes, it has to be way out of sight: “a deep geological formationâ€, is what the AKEnd recommended this weekend. Political hot potato However, it is not necessarily surprising that solutions are not forthcoming. The question of a final disposal site for Germany’s nuclear waste is a highly controversial issue. Intermediate storage for radioactive waste has been found and transports have been on the move in Germany since the late 1990’s, ending up at a facility in the small town of Gorleben in Lower Saxony. The transports have been met with violent opposition with protestors going as far as chaining themselves to train tracks in an attempt to stop the trains reaching their destination. Until now, however, protestors have won only small victories. At most they have delayed the trains, but have never succeeded in turning them back. What will happen to Gorleben's intermediate storage site is still unknown to the area's population. The final report, in which the AKEnd panel, will make its recommendations for a final disposal site is expected by the end of the year. [en:dw_radiolive] [http://www.campus-germany.de/] ***************************************************************** 48 NRC Invites Public to Submit Nominations for Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste NRC: News Release - 2002-122 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov [opa@nrc.gov] www.nrc.gov No. 02-122 October 21, 2002 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking qualified candidates for an appointment to its Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW). Currently there are five members and the Commission is seeking to fill one of the positions on the Committee. The ACNW is a part-time advisory group established by the NRC in 1988 to provide independent technical review of and advice on the disposal of nuclear waste, as directed by the NRC. The ACNW undertakes independent studies and reviews related to disposal, storage, and transportation of both high- and low-level radioactive waste including interim storage of spent nuclear fuel; materials safety; and facilities decommissioning. This encompasses activities related to rulemakings, associated regulatory guides, and technical positions developed to support and clarify NRCs nuclear materials and radioactive waste regulations. Currently, the Commission is seeking an individual with significant technical expertise in radioactive waste disposal, site remediation and closure activities, nuclear fuel reprocessing, chemistry, chemical exchange processes, and the nuclear fuel cycle. The ACNW membership includes individuals who possess specific technical expertise along with a broad perspective in addressing safety concerns. Committee members are selected from a variety of engineering and scientific disciplines, such as risk assessment, chemistry, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, materials sciences, and earth sciences. At this time, candidates are being sought who have 15-20 years of experience, including graduate level education, in the management and disposal of radioactive waste. Committee members serve a four-year term with the possibility of reappointment for a total service of eight years. Criteria used to evaluate candidates includes education and experience, demonstrated skills in nuclear waste management matters, and the ability to solve complex technical problems. The Commission, in selecting its Committee members, considers the need for a specific expertise to accomplish the work expected to come before the ACNW. Consistent with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Commission seeks candidates with diverse backgrounds so that the membership on the Committee will be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and functions to be performed by the Committee. Candidates for ACNW appointments may be involved in or have financial interests related to NRC-regulated aspects of the nuclear industry. Because conflict-of-interest considerations may restrict the participation of a candidate in ACNW activities, the degree and nature of any such restriction on an individuals activities as a member will be considered in the selection process. Each qualified candidates financial interests must be reconciled with applicable Federal and NRC rules and regulations prior to final appointment. This might require divestiture of securities or discontinuance of certain contracts or grants. Information regarding these restrictions will be provided upon request. A resumé describing the educational and professional background of the candidate, including special accomplishments and professional references should be provided. Candidates should provide their current address, telephone number, and e-mail address. All candidates will receive careful consideration. Appointment will be made without regard to such factors as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disabilities. Candidates must be citizens of the United States and be able to devote approximately 70-100 days per year to Committee business. Applications will be accepted until December 20. Copies of resumés of nominees should be sent to Sherry Meador, Administrative Assistant, ACRS/ACNW, Mail Stop T2E-26, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, e-mail address SAM@NRC.gov [SAM@NRC.gov] . Tuesday, October 22, 2002 ***************************************************************** 49 *Sellafield 'posing real risk to ulster'* PUBLICATION DATE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2002 THE BELFAST TELEGRAPH * *By David Gordon* * UNDER THREAT: Controversial nuclear plant THE "cataclysmic" risks to Northern Ireland from an accident or terror attack on Sellafield nuclear reprocessing operations have been spelt out at an international tribunal hearing. The Republic's Attorney-General Rory Brady gave a strongly-worded presentation in the Netherlands about Sellafield's controversial MOX plant. And he argued that the impact on the Irish people of a disaster in Sellafield had never been assessed. The hearing, at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, is examining the Dublin government's demand to see two unedited reports on the economic aspects of the MOX operation. Mr Brady said risks to the Irish coastline from the nuclear waste reprocessing include: terrorist attack, radioactive emissions from an accident or fire at the plant, discharges of radioactive material into the Irish Sea and leakage in the course of shipment. Mr Brady told the Hague-based tribunal - set up under the OSPAR marine convention - that there were risks not only from the MOX plant but also from its adjoining Thorp facility. No nuclear plant in Britain uses MOX mixed plutonium and uranium, and it will all have to be sent abroad by sea. Mr Brady warned that fire at sea could cause the fuel to vapourise, releasing "large breathable particles" into the atmosphere. There was the risk of a ship sinking, with unrecovered storage units corroding over time, allowing the MOX fuel to escape. The MOX plant itself would produce radioactive wastes in solid, liquid and gaseous forms, particularly "plutonium-contaminated material". Mr Brady also told the hearing an accident in the nuclear industry could be "cataclysmic" and fears of a terrorist attack had been heightened since September 11. Arguing for the release of the full economic viability reports, Mr Brady said his government had a direct interest in discovering the nature of safety standards applied at the plant and the sum being spent on safety measures. SDLP MP Eddie McGrady, a veteran anti-Sellafield campaigner, today voiced his backing for the Irish government's legal case. He said: "The time has now come for the British Government and British Nuclear Fuels to make a decision to end the re-processing of the world's radioactive waste, the production of global MOX fuel, and to commence the process of the decommissioning of the whole plant." ***************************************************************** 50 Nuclear worries newsobserver.com : front : Editorials OCTOBER 22, 2002 Regarding the Oct. 10 article "Nuke plants seen as risk": Thanks for mentioning the risks that CP takes by storing so much irradiated fuel in pools at its Shearon Harris plant and with the nuclear rail shipments from Wilmington and South Carolina, which pass 1 mile from my house on the Moncure-Pittsboro Road, close to the Moncure post office, homes, businesses and churches. U.S. Rep. David Price contacted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on my behalf. I received a 1987 pamphlet on transporting nuclear waste, based on statistics now irrelevant. Contrary to some assertions, a steel cask could be breached, for example if engulfed in a fire for some hours. Could emergency personnel deal with a derailed train? We had a derailment in Chatham County recently that took days to resolve, and it wasn't a train carrying radioactive materials. Attorney General Roy Cooper's office says that it isn't hearing from local law enforcement officials that they are concerned. We have a lot of wishful thinking around this risk. I ask Cooper, as attorney general, to tell CP to stop these trains, using his power to keep a corporation from endangering the public. Let them be "good neighbors" and move to dry cask storage in earth berms on site. If 27 state attorney generals are concerned about nuclear terrorism, why do North Carolina officials find this so hard to think about? Judy Hogan Moncure © Copyright 2002, The News &Observer Publishing Company. All ***************************************************************** 51 Ireland puts case against N-plant Oct 22 2002 By The Journal An accident at Sellafield's Mox plant could have a catastrophic effect, the Irish Government claimed at a tribunal in The Hague. On the opening day of a case against the British Government, it was claimed the danger posed to the Irish public by the Cumbrian plant had never been properly assessed. The claims came in a bid by Ireland to gain full disclosure of two key reports commissioned by the British Government on the economic and environmental aspects of the plant. Ireland is arguing for access to additional information which it claims was withheld from the reports, prepared before the British authorities approved the plant for reprocessing mixed oxide fuel (Mox) from nuclear reactors. The country's case before the Ospar Convention's arbitration tribunal is expected to last a week, although a final decision is not expected for some months. A spokesman for environment minister Martin Cullen said parts of both reports were "blacked out" and that the Irish Government only saw a percentage of information. Mr Cullen said that Ireland was not alone in its concerns, and he also questioned the viability of the Mox industry and whether it had a future. icNewcastle^TM is a trade mark of Trinity Mirror Plc. ***************************************************************** 52 Irish fight for Sellafield 'secrets' BBC NEWS | UK | England | Tuesday, 22 October, 2002, [Sellafield Nuclear Processing Plant] Highly radioactive material is stored at Sellafield A UK delegation will give evidence on Tuesday on the second day of a two-day hearing brought by the Irish government over the Sellafield plant. The Irish Government has taken the UK to an international tribunal in The Hague to gain access to information on the Mox plant at Sellafield. On Monday, Ireland's Attorney General Rory Brady said Dublin needed the information to assess the impact of radioactive discharges into the Irish Sea. However, Sellafield plant operators BNFL has refused to reveal the information because it says it is too sensitive. 'Commercial information' The UK government says the plant meets the highest international safety standards and has vowed to fight its case vigorously. A spokesman said: "The very small amount of information being held back is commercial information." Ireland is seeking full disclosure of two key reports commissioned by the British Government on the economic and environmental aspects of the Cumbrian nuclear plant. It is arguing for access to additional information which it claims was withheld. The case is being held in front of a panel of the Ospar Convention, a body of European nuclear countries brought together by agreements made in Oslo and Paris. Nuclear freighters The two key reports were prepared before the UK authorities approved the Sellafield plant for reprocessing mixed oxide fuel (Mox) from nuclear reactors. A spokesman for Irish environment minister Martin Cullen said parts of both reports were "blacked out" and that they only saw a percentage of information. Ireland's case before the Ospar Convention's arbitration tribunal will be led by Mr Brady, with Mr Cullen heading the delegation. The tribunal comes just weeks after Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior intercepted two nuclear freighters in the Irish Sea as they made their way to Sellafield from Japan. © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 53 Common nuclear waste element could be bomb threat Tue, Oct 22, 2002 Dan Vergano [http://www.usatoday.com:80/] Weapons scientists at Los Alamos (N.M.) National Laboratory say the amount of a common nuclear waste, the radioactive element neptunium, needed to create atomic bombs is significantly less than expected. Coming amid last week's disclosure of a North Korean nuclear weapons program and fears of nuclear terrorism worldwide, the find raises concerns about reactor waste being fashioned into bombs. ''There's plenty of it out there,'' Los Alamos spokesman Kevin Roark says. Found inside spent nuclear reactor fuel rods, neptunium lies between uranium and plutonium on chemistry's periodic table. The Los Alamos researchers found that the amount of the material needed to reach ''critical mass,'' the point just before a nuclear chain reaction occurs, is about 25% less than believed. The research, a 12-year effort, was conducted as part of the Energy Department's nuclear security program. In the experiment led by Rene Sanchez and David Loazia of the lab's Advanced Nuclear Technology group, scientists remotely brought two halves of a neptunium sphere closer together over four days to learn at what point a reaction would begin. Overall radioactivity was limited, and atomic fission, the chain reaction that occurs in atomic bombs, did not occur during the experiment. The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) instituted a voluntary monitoring system for neptunium in 1999 after public disclosure of its potential as a bomb material. Americium, another reactor waste product, also could serve as weapons material and is monitored by the same voluntary system, although the agency views it as less of a threat. The voluntary system cannot assure the world that neptunium isn't being diverted to secret bomb projects, says Michael Levi of the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, D.C. ''Certainly this contains loopholes that need to be closed.'' Of particular worry, he says, neptunium can be fashioned into some atomic bomb designs more easily than plutonium. In addition, the new research suggests that nuclear reactor operators can underestimate the radioactivity of the neptunium in fuel rods, posing a safety concern. Determining the actual amount of neptunium needed to reach a critical mass also tells ''non-proliferation'' nuclear watchdogs when they have to worry, Roark says: ''It helps weapons scientists interested in non-proliferation know who to watch.'' Levi called for an increase in the watchdog budget of the IAEA, a U.N.-chartered agency, to make monitoring of neptunium and americium mandatory. ''I doubt anyone with pure intentions would resist more monitoring,'' Levi says. The agency's regular budget last year was $230 million. Copyright © 2002 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. ***************************************************************** 54 Carlsbad Wants Rocky Flats Waste The Denver Channel - [http://www.thedenverchannel.com/] Plutonium Waste From Colorado Could Go To New Mexico Posted: 10:15 a.m. MDT October 21, 2002 CARLSBAD, N.M. -- Community leaders in Carlsbad are enthusiastic about the possibility that the Department of Energy could put a plutonium pit factory in the area. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is already located near here, and officials say Carlsbad sees the pit factory as a manageable risk with economic benefits. "If you like WIPP you've got to like this project," said Carlsbad Mayor Bob Forrest. The Department of Energy recently held a public hearing that drew about 200 people, most of whom applauded as elected officials and citizens praised WIPP and the DOE's proposal for a new plutonium project. Of the more than 40 people who came forward to testify, only two opposed the project. "The vast majority of people in Carlsbad have a characteristic that DOE doesn't run into too much these days," state Sen. Don Kidd, R-Carlsbad, said during the Oct. 10 hearing. "We trust you." The first radioactive waste arrived at WIPP in 1999, decades after discussions on the matter began. WIPP, which buries plutonium-contaminated waste from defense work more than 2,100 feet underground in salt beds, currently employs about 1,000 people. "WIPP's a fourth of our economy," Forrest said. "We have a lot of couples making $200,000 a year between them." Forest estimates locals have filled about half of the job openings at WIPP. WIPP is one of five DOE sites in the running for the $4.1 billion factory to produce nuclear weapons cores called plutonium pits. Other sites being considered are Los Alamos National Laboratory in northern New Mexico; the Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas; the Nevada Test Site; and South Carolina's Savannah River Site. WIPP is rated last on the list of sites; Los Alamos is rated first, according to a recent DOE review. The plant, which the DOE hopes to open by 2020, would employ about 1,000. A decision on where the facility will be built is not expected until 2006. Forrest is quick to remind the federal government that WIPP is near Carlsbad because "nobody else wanted it." "DOE doesn't have that many friends," he said. Plutonium pits were made at Rocky Flats from 1952 to 1989, when environmental and safety problems led to the closure of the Colorado plant. Copyright 2002 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may ***************************************************************** 55 Sellafield hearing gets underway 21/10/2002 - The UN Court of Arbitration has begun hearing an Irish application to force Britain to disclose its financial plans and projects for the Sellafield nuclear plant. Opening the Irish case, Attorney General Rory Brady said Ireland has a direct interest in information about the nuclear plant because of the effect that waste discharges have on the Irish Sea. British Nuclear Fuels, which is owned by the British government, has refused to reveal information about its sales volume or estimates of future contracts, saying it is too economically sensitive. However, Mr Brady argued today that that the figures could help indicate the levels of hazardous waste likely to enter or leave the plant, information that goes to the heart of international treaties governing radioactive pollution. "The information affects Ireland's ability to assess the impact on the Irish Sea environment," he said. "If there are substantial contracts, as the British government has argued there are, then that has consequences for Ireland." Although this case is solely about the disclosure of information on the grounds of environmental protection, the Irish Government has confirmed that it is hoping to use any disclosed material in its campaign to have Sellafield shut down. The British government is due to respond to Ireland's arguments tomorrow and the hearing is expected to last all week. The three-judge Court of Arbitration has not set a date for when it will issue a ruling. © Thomas Crosbie Media, 21 October 2002. ***************************************************************** 56 Company launches PR effort for Hartsville plant * amsouth amphitheater ad * *Wednesday, 10/16/02* | Middle Tennessee News & Information* By KATHY CARLSON /Staff Writer/ The parties in the debate over building a $1.1 billion uranium-enrichment plant in Trousdale County are turning to Nashville for public relations and legal assistance. Louisiana Energy Services, which last month announced its selection of the rural Midstate county as its preferred site for the facility, has hired the law firm Stokes Bartholomew Evans & Petree, as well as the Dye Van Mol & Lawrence public relations firm. Attorneys at Stokes Bartho- lomew will work with LES on state law issues, including tax and real estate matters, said George Dials, LES' president and chief executive officer. Dye Van Mol executives will help ''make sure that we're communicating clearly with everyone and getting the information out on a timely way,'' he said. The LES facility would enrich uranium for use as a fuel to generate electricity in nuclear power plants. Such fuel is made with uranium that's enriched to contain 3%-5% of a key variant of the element. Nuclear power accounts for about one-fifth of the nation's electricity. Others involved in Hartsville's enrichment-plant decision are hiring their own counsel. A second Nashville public and government relations firm, The Ingram Group, is working with the Four Lake Regional Industrial Development Authority, Trousdale County Executive Jerry Clift said. The authority owns the land where LES wants to build the plant. The Ingram Group was hired not to be an advocate, but to ''facilitate information and communication'' so residents can make informed decisions, said Ingram's Peter Heidenreich. In addition, lawyers in Nashville, Knoxville and Washington, D.C., are working with the Tennessee Environmental Council free of charge, said Will Callaway, the group's executive director. He wouldn't identify them without their permission. LES has opened an information office on the town square in Hartsville, and Dials participated in an open forum on the plant Monday night in Hartsville. Trousdale County residents complained shortly after last month's announcement that not enough information was available. A decade ago, LES tried and failed to build a similar plant in rural Louisiana and had a smaller PR effort. Dials said LES today is a different company. ''It really is a new start,'' Dials said, ''and we haven't bothered to go back and look at things that were or were not done.'' / Kathy Carlson can be reached at 259-8047 or at kcarlson@tennessean.com . / © Copyright 2002 The Tennessean ***************************************************************** 57 Russia to seek info from Pak on nuclear links with N Korea B. RAMAN _*The Nuclear Axis Of Evil*_ The US might be surprised by the Pak-North Korea nexus, but this author has been asserting it since 1998. What is the matter with the much-vaunted US intelligence? Why is it blind to Pak perfidies? NKOREA-RUSSIA MOSCOW, OCT 22 (PTI) Russia has said it would seek information from Pakistan and some other countries on their alleged links with the North Korean nuclear weapons programme before adopting a firm stand on the issue. "In particular, the US officials have pointed at Pakistan, so we have to activate all the possibilities for collecting objective information," Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov said. "We also hope that our North Korean partners would officially state their positoin. They, probably, would need some time for this," he was quoted as saying by the Foreign Ministry Press Office. Visiting US Undersecretary of State John Bolton, during a meeting with Mamedov yesterday, passed on "confidential" information about the North Korean nuclear weapons programme, it said. Mamedov said that so far Moscow has information on Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programme "only from one source" -- the US -- and has immediately sought information not only from North Korea but also from South Korea, Japan and some other countries which have their own sources of information. Mamedov called for resolving the issue of North Korean nuclear programme on the basis of a political dialogue. COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER ***************************************************************** 58 Blair talks down UN split on Iraq Guardian Unlimited | Archive Search Staff and agencies Guardian Unlimited Monday October 21, 2002 Tony Blair today sought to play down international disagreement about how to deal with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. After a month of wrangling with the UN security council, the US last week backed down from demands for a new resolution authorising military action if Saddam Hussein did not comply with weapons inspectors. Instead, it proposed a new compromise resolution, giving inspectors a tougher mandate to eliminate any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programme and stating that the Iraqi leader would face "consequences" if he failed to cooperate. Discussion of the new resolution in the security council has been delayed while permanent members France and Russia consider the draft text. The French have previously insisted that there must be a clear requirement for the US to return to the security council for a second resolution specifically authorising the use of force before any attack on Iraq takes place. France is understood to be concerned that the threat of "consequences" might be interpreted as UN approval for a military strike. Speaking at No 10 today, Mr Blair said: "I don't think the disagreement has been nearly as big as people think. "What we want is to get everybody on the same page, and that page is: let us work through the UN, let us make it clear that the role of the UN is to disarm Saddam Hussein of these weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons - and let us all accept that there should be a new resolution put down by the UN. "The weapons inspectors should go in and be allowed to do their job and if they are not allowed to do their job, then of course the international community has to act. "I think in the last few weeks there has been a considerable change in people coming together around that common position of saying 'let the UN deal with this', but let it indeed be a way of dealing with it, not a way of avoiding dealing with it." Mr Blair was speaking after talks at Downing Street with Finnish prime minister, Paavo Lipponen, during which Iraq was discussed. Mr Lipponen stressed the need for clear UN authorisation of any military action. He said: "The point is that the UN is the forum, that the security council will authorise first a mandate for the inspectors and then also any use of force. "Now the debate on whether we have one or two resolutions, I think, probably can be resolved." [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 59 Legislator suggests Taiwan go nuclear eTaiwanNews.com/ [http://www.etaiwannews.com/] Weapons of mass destruction may be needed to ensure'effective deterrence,' Lee says 2002-10-21 / Taiwan News, Staff Reporter / By Hung-fu Hsueh Democratic Progressive Party legislator Lee Wen-chung (§õ¤å©¾)said yesterday that Taiwan should consider developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in order to achieve the strategic goal of "effective deterrence." Lee stated that the idea of "effective deterrence" previously proposed by the Ministry of National Defense in formulating its defense strategy had become nothing more than a slogan and had been ignored in the MND's actual buildup of the nation's armed forces. Lee said if "effective deterrence" was really the strategic goal of Taiwan's defense policy, then certain weaponry systems and combat concepts needed to be considered as part of an effective deterrent force. Among the possibilities Lee mentioned were nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; medium range missiles, cruise missiles or air-to-surface missiles mounted on F-16 fighters; submarines; and highly maneuverable special forces style units capable of striking in distant places. Lee's comments followed a speech entitled "Taiwan Defense Strategy: Forward Vision and Planning" delivered by researcher Wong Ming-hsien (¯Î©ú½å)at a seminar held by Taiwan New Century Foundation to discuss Taiwan's security and defense strategy. Lee's view was challenged at the symposium by Shuai Hua-min (?quot;¤Æ¥Á), a retired lieutenant general and a former dean at the national defense management college. During a question and answer session, Shuai questioned the feasibility of developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as a deterrent force. "You should ask your enemy whether it really cares about your 'deterrent force' or not," Shuai calmly asked. He said China's capacity to endure damage was 100 times that of Taiwan, and if the enemy dropped 10 bombs on Taiwan, then Taiwan would need to hit China with 1,000 bombs in order to leave China with the same magnitude of damage. Shuai also questioned if Chinese authorities were really concerned about massive civilian casualties inflicted in war. Shuai explained that the only issue of interest to Beijing was who is going to hold power, not how many civilians perish. Shuai argued that the only real deterrent force in Taiwan's arsenal which could threaten China is the country's democratic political system which makes China's communist system pale in comparison. Shuai even suggested that Taiwan should have the ambition to take power from Communist China instead of adopting an independent stance. Lee replied that he saw no alternative to nuclear weapons to provide a legitimate defense deterrent in view of Chinese claims that they already have the capability to launch ballistic missiles that can reach Los Angeles. Lee said Taiwan should inform China that the island has the ability to destroy China's metropolitan centers to dampen the mainland's desire to unify Taiwan by force. "I am not a militarist. In fact, I'm just the opposite," Lee said. "My views on China policy have always been moderate and peace-seeking. However, national defense is another matter, and whatever we do to defend ourselves is just," Lee explained. Lin Cheng-yi (ªL¥¿¸q), a research fellow and director of the Institute of European and American Studies at Academia Sinica, echoed Lee's views in an interview with the Taiwan News. Lin said that Lee was describing "crucial and critical weaponry" - the weaponry needed to achieve a military balance with China and deter a potential Chinese attack - that Taiwan currently lacked and yearned for. "Crucial and critical weaponry does not necessarily have to include nuclear bombs," Lin suggested. "It could be a fuel bomb or cruise missile or other options. I would certainly advocate having a nuclear capability if we were allowed to have one. But I really doubt that even the president could now decide to produce a nuclear bomb in secret, as there might be another traitor like Chang Hsien-yi who defected and took our secrets to the United States." © 2001-2002 Taiwan News. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 60 Israeli Daily Says NK Experimenting in Iran Digital Chosunilbo (English Edition) : Daily News in English About Korea Updated Oct.21,2002 20:28 KST by Kim Yeon-kuk (yk-kim@chosun.com) The Israeli Ha'aretz Daily reported Monday that North Korea has been experimenting with enriched uranium production and long-range missile engines in Iran. Ha'aretz said this was part of a deal in which Pyongyang constructed a centrifugal separator for enriched uranium production and provided long-range missile engine technology to Iran. The daily quoted US experts as saying North Korea supplied missile construction technology to Pakistan in 1990 in return for receiving help in developing the centrifugal machine for the enriched uranium production, and the North is currently working with Iran. It said North Korea's deal with Iran was to hide its activities from intelligence agents of the US and the North's neighboring countries. Foreign sources said the North Korean separator in Iran has reached the production stage, but they do not know of any progress or how much uranium Iran has handled from the separator. According to them, North Korea tested a 3,500-5,000km-range missile (Daepodong) engine in Iran and Iran began to develop the "Sihap-5" missile based on this. Ha'aretz also reported the North helped Syria to develop a Scud missile production line, including the "D" type, and that Egypt had once attempted to import 50 Rodong missiles from the North, but backed down following US pressure. ***************************************************************** 61 Outfitted For Iraq turkishpress.com STAR- Columnist Murat Celik comments on a possible operation by the US against Iraq. A summary of his column is as follows: ?Gen. Tommy Franks, the US commander for the Persian Gulf region, said that the US didn?t have any requests to Turkey concerning the Iraq issue. Gen. Joseph Ralston, who commands NATO?s forces in Europe, completed his contacts and left Ankara.? These words belong to yesterday?s Anatolia news agency?s reports. These American leaders? contacts at Chief of General Staff headquarters in Ankara topped yesterday?s news. Gen. Franks is the commander who will likely lead the ?Big Broom? operation in Iraq. In other words, he will be the top-ranking officer for US operation against Iraq. Franks and Ralston didn?t have any concrete requests for Ankara, because Washington itself hasn?t made a final decision yet. As Franks told those he spoke to during the meeting at the General staff, ?We?re waiting for President Bush?s decision.? Turkey has two important items on its agenda concerning Iraq. The first is the ?Big Broom? operation to be launched by the US in order to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a democratic Iraqi Republic. The second is developments in northern Iraq and the future of the de facto nascent state in the region. During the meetings with the US commanders, this second topic didn?t appear on the agenda. Only the first, that is, plans for a US operation against Iraq, were discussed in broad terms. Alternative plans were also brought up. As no political decision has yet been made, the US Army can do nothing but review possible scenarios and battle plans, just as the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) have been doing. The operation plans will be given their final shape after Bush gives the order. Bush?s command to the US army will set off a ?state of war.? However, this situation won?t mean the actual start of a war. After the state of war begins, the launch of the first bullet, rocket or bomb will still be a long time in coming. Ankara?s impression is that Bush will give the order following US congressional elections in November. Considering the coming holy Muslim month of Ramadan, starting Nov. 6 and ending with December?s ?Sugar Bayram? holiday, speculation is running that the war won?t actually begin until early next year. While the US has been preparing for an Iraqi operation, it has taken special measures to guard against the threat of nuclear and biological weapons. I?m talking about some half-a-million special suits to protect against the effects of bio-terrorist attacks. Hidden in this measure, which was put together due to the anthrax scare, is a detail that will affect the timetable of the operation. If these special outfits prepared by Americans were used today during an operation on Iraqi territory, the temperature inside the clothes would reach a boiling 60 degrees Celsius due to the region?s climate. In other words, carrying out an operation today in the region with those clothes would be impossible. Such clothes would be practically wearable only in December, January and February, when the Iraqi deserts will be cold enough to freeze a person. In other words, the US is faced not only with crucial factors such as swaying international opinion and its own elections, but also with a timetable dictated by technical equipment. SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF PRESS AND INFORMATION BYEGM 10/22/2002 8:29:24 AM © 2002 Anatolia.com Inc. ***************************************************************** 62 APEC summit discussions to focus on nuclear weapons The World Today - Monday, October 21, 2002 12:16 JOHN HIGHFIELD: Opportunities for Australia to put its views on equal footing to the world's biggest powers is seldom given. But that's precisely what will be happening at the coming weekend Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum to be held in Mexico. The Prime Minister, John Howard, will be going, and he says he'll be putting strong Australian views on security cooperation and the defeat of terrorism to some of most powerful leaders in the world, including the Presidents of Russia, China and the United States. The annual APEC summit was originally established on an idea from the Hawke Labor Government in Australia and, as its name implies, it deals with the business of getting on with business in an increasingly globalised trading world. But this weekend's Mexico summit will see the Asia Pacific leaders wrestle with the implications of not only Bali and the Indonesian response to the bombings there, but also North Korea's admission last week that it's had a secret nuclear weapons program and Washington's threat to fight a go-at-it-alone war with Iraq is on the agenda as well. As our North America correspondent Lisa Millar reports, the Bush administration, given its crisis list, is advocating a diplomatic resolution for North Korea. LISA MILLAR: In 1994 the United States and North Korea entered into a political agreement. North Korea would stop pursuing nuclear weapons and the US would send fuel to help it provide electricity for its population. But National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, admits that agreement is all but dead after North Korea’s admission of a fortnight ago. CONDOLEEZZA RICE: In order to have a political agreement you have to have another party to that agreement, and the North Koreans have said that it’s nullified, and so we now have to look at what to do next LISA MILLAR: For now, the Bush administration is hoping it can be resolved on a diplomatic level. Secretary of State Colin Powell is confident international pressure will work in the case of North Korea. COLIN POWELL: Frankly, we have levers that we can apply to North Korea that don’t exist with respect to other nations such as Iraq, economic levers, the concerns of the neighbours in the region. It's hard for North Korea to deliver a nuclear weapon against the United States. It’s not that hard for to deliver it against its neighbours, so its neighbours, I think, will be bringing a lot of pressure to bear, and the neighbours have a lot of offer North Korea that won’t be forthcoming if North Korea continues to move in this direction, and does not come clean and stop this effort LISA MILLAR: Condoleezza Rice reiterated the US doesn’t intend dealing with this alone. CONDOLEEZZA RICE: We believe that this is an opportunity for the international community to stand up together and to say to the North Koreans, if you have any hope of breaking out of your isolation, your economic isolation, your political isolation, that hope is going to be dashed by continuing to pursue illegal nuclear weapons. LISA MILLAR: Colin Powell says the US has to move with great care, but he says there’s no serious contingency planning at this point, and he won't speculate about military action. COLIN POWELL: It’s not a matter of tolerating anything, it’s a matter of trying to manage the problem. We’d like to see them get rid of any weapon they may have, and we’re just assuming they have a weapon. We can't see it or prove it, and we don't know where it is, if we knew that they had it. It's a matter of working this problem, managing this problem in a way that deals with our concerns about a nuclear armed North Korea and avoids a conflict over the issue. LISA MILLAR: Former Clinton administration officials have confirmed just how close the US was to war with North Korea in 1994 before the agreement was reached. Former Defence Secretary William Perry and assistant Defence Secretary, Ashton Carter have both said they had plans ready for striking North Korea’s nuclear facilities and for mobilizing hundreds of thousands of American troops for the war that probably would have followed. There’s no suggestion any such planning is underway today, the Bush administration remaining optimistic North Korea will fall into line. This is Lisa Millar in Washington, for The World Today. [ABC Online] [ border=] [ border=] Transcripts on this website are created by an independent transcription service. The ABC does not warrant the accuracy of the transcripts. ABC Online users are advised to listen to the audio provided on this page to verify the accuracy of the transcripts. © 2002 ABC [http://www.abc.net.au/common/copyrigh.htm] | Privacy Policy [http://www.abc.net.au/privacy.htm] ***************************************************************** 63 DOE the slowest in responding to FOIA's The Oakland Tribune Monday, October 21, 2002 - 3:08:34 AM MST By Lisa FriedmanWASHINGTON BUREAU A new report has found that the U.S. Department of Energy takes longer than any other federal agency to process Freedom of Information Act requests. The Department of Justice study found the median time DOE takes to answer requests is 2,009 days. Agencies are supposed to respond to information requests within 30 days. That comes as no surprise to local activists. "I think it's just really indicative of the type of secrecy that's surrounding the nuclear weapon development at the nuclear labs," said Tara Dorabji, outreach coordinator at the Tri-Valley Communities Against Radioactive Waste. The report also found the number of Freedom of Information requests received by all federal departments and agencies reached a record high in 2001 of 2,246,212. Of those, 177,969 are still pending. ©1999-2002 by MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 64 Uranium town confronts past, looks toward future E-THE PEOPLE Start a petition, vote on polls and connect with YOUR government.
[http://www.e-thepeople.com/affiliates/courierpress/] Voice your opinion on local issues! [http://www.e-thepeople.org/a-courierpress] By KIMBERLY HEFLING Associated Press Writer October 19, 2002 PADUCAH, Ky.- The sick workers come in the government's resource center pulling oxygen tanks and wearing hearing aides. Some are skeptical. Others are angry. Many, sick and scared with tumors and incurable cancers, just want someone to listen to them. This is the legacy of the Atomic Age. Unbeknownst to some at the time, workers were exposed to dangerous radioactive elements at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, the government would later admit. Yet, the plant also has been an important economic engine, providing tens of thousands of workers with jobs through the years. Some of the same sick people seeking help obtaining compensation from the government at Paducah's "sick workers office" say they would do it all again, said Stewart Tolar, site manager at the Energy Employees Compensation Resource Center. The city will unveil murals painted on the Ohio River floodwall paying tribute to the plant's early workers as part of a 50th anniversary celebration of the plant. The anniversary, Oct. 24, comes at a time when Paducah, population 27,000, is coming to terms with the plant's past as well as trying to ensure its future. Opening the plant "was a major event in the history of the city," said Don Pepper, 78, a Paducah resident who moved to Paducah in 1951 to work as a reporter for the Paducah Sun. "It set the character of this city for a long time." After U.S. Enrichment Corp., the plant's operator, last year almost completely suspended operations at a sister uranium plant in Ohio, the Paducah plant became the only place in the nation where uranium is enriched for the commercial nuclear industry. It employs more than 1,400 people, and is western Kentucky's top private employer. It is also one of the top employers in the state. In 1950, the announcement that the plant would be built in western Kentucky was welcome news in the region, and native son Alben Barkley, vice president under Harry Truman, was praised for helping to secure it. "When my grandfather put the place in, it was all new and no one knew what was going on," Barkley granddaughter Dottie Barkley said of the radioactive dangers the workers faced. The then-equivalent of the chamber of commerce encouraged residents to take in workers to fill a housing shortage. There was an economic boom with new schools, churches and businesses constructed. Communities sprung up with names like "Cimota" _ "Atomic" spelled backward. With the increase in demand for engineers and scientist at the plant, the middle and upper classes expanded in what had primarily been a railroad and river town. "Everybody thought we were doing a necessary job to help our country," retired plant worker B.J. Bond, 75, said of the Cold War era when workers helped enrich uranium for weapons. "I think it's one of the best things that's happened in the area. It's been the foundation of the financial community in the area for years." The government long denied there was a link between cancer and the plant. If you filed a medical claim, it was a "David and Goliath" fight, said Jim Owens, a Paducah attorney involved with litigation against the government and private companies contracted to run the plant. The government's policy on claims was "fight them all," Owens said. People like Joe Harding, a former plant worker, were denied significant compensation _ even though before he died of cancer in 1980, his bones contained 34,000 times the expected concentration of uranium. In 1999 the government conceded that many uranium enrichment workers did get sick because of on-the-job exposure. Then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson issued an apology in Paducah in 1999 to workers who may have been exposed to dangerous radiation. An entitlement law later provided lifetime medical care and a tax-free lump sum of $150,000 to sick workers exposed to cancer-causing radiation and silica or beryllium, which can cause lung diseases. Since the program began last year, about $62.8 million has been distributed to former and current workers and their survivors through the resource office in Paducah _ a majority of whom worked at the plant in Paducah, Tolar said. "People come in here very sick ... They feel like they've lost their dignity," Tolar said. After working with the center on the paperwork, "We've seen people who are able to buy cars, get out of debt, buy homes in better neighborhoods." In addition to the health concerns of the workers, a 2000 report by the General Accounting office said the Energy Department estimated it would take 10 years and $1.3 billion more than the $400 million already spent to clean up environmental contamination around the plant. Susan Zimmerman Guess, a former plant employee who is an organizer of the plant's 50th anniversary celebration, said the murals and other activities are meant to honor the workers at the plant and nearby facilities associated with the Paducah plant: TVA's Shawnee Steam Plant, Electric Energy Inc.'s Joppa Steam Plant and Honeywell's Metropolis (Ill.) UF6 Conversion Works. The celebration's purpose also is to draw attention to the community support as USEC weighs where to build a new plant using a technology known as centrifuge that is more efficient than the outdated gaseous diffusion process now used at Paducah, Guess said. The former plant site in Piketon, Ohio, also is vying for the new plant. "This community and this region has been supportive of the plant over the last 50 years," Guess said of Paducah. "The next technology should be located here in Paducah, McCracken County. That is a goal of ours for economic development purposes and long term viability of the community." Barkley said she also hopes that will happen. "If you can put together something that's safe, this would be a great solution," Barkley said. _____: On the Net: USEC Inc.: http://www.usec.com/ U.S. Department of Energy: http://www.energy.gov/ ***************************************************************** 65 Important dates in 50 years of Paducah, Ky., uranium plant By The Associated Press October 19, 2002 December 1950: Kentucky Ordnance Works site in Paducah selected for new uranium enrichment plant. December 1950: Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Co. (now Union Carbide) named to operate plant. September 1952: First production cells go "on stream" November 1952: Operator withdraws first product and ships it to Oak Ridge, Tenn. Mid-1960s: Plant shifts from military to commercial focus, supplying enriched uranium to nuclear power plants April 1984: Martin Marietta Energy Systems Inc. takes over Union Carbide's operating contract for plant. October 1992: Energy Policy Act creates USEC to take over government's uranium enrichment enterprise. July 1993: USEC assumes responsibility of Paducah and Piketon, Ohio, uranium enrichment plants. The Department of Energy retains responsibility for environmental restoration and waste management activities resulting from its operations at the site. July 1993: USEC contracts with Martin Marietta Utility Services, a newly-created subsidiary of Martin Marietta, for operation and maintenance of enrichment plants. June 1995: Lockheed Martin Corp. forms after merger of Lockheed and Martin Marietta corporations. Lockheed Martin Utility Services Inc. continues operation of USEC's Paducah and Portsmouth plants. July 1998: USEC is privatized, becomes USEC Inc., an investor-owned corporation. May 1999: USEC takes over direct operation of Paducah and Ohio gaseous diffusion plants. September 1999: Then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson issues an apology in Paducah in 1999 to workers who may have been exposed to dangerous radiation. June 2000: USEC announces plan to consolidate all enrichment activity at Paducah by June 2001. May 2001: USEC ceases enrichment activities at plant in Piketon, Ohio. July 2001: Energy Employees Compensation Resource Center opens in Paducah for employees seeking federal compensation for cancers linked to working at the plant. [http://www.scripps.com] © 2001 The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 66 Sandia manager defends nuclear research efforts The Daily Texan - October 21, 2002 A Sandia National Laboratories manager spoke Friday at the College of Engineering about nuclear energy research at the national facility. Gary E. Rochau, who has worked at Sandia for 26 years, said Sandia researches all aspects of nuclear energy, from creation and use to disposal. "Our first responsibility is to provide the research necessary to innovate the operations of nuclear facilities," Rochau said. The UT System is expected to enter a bid to manage the labs this year. Rochau said the labs test the safety of nuclear energy receptacles and find ways to operate nuclear power plants safely. "We run through all kinds of scenarios of what might happen. Since nuclear power plants could be considered a target, we are actively looking so that there will only be one Three Mile Island," he said, referring to the 1979 partial meltdown of a reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pa. Rochau also spoke about his research on Direct Energy Conversion. "The promise is that we can harness energy from the atom more efficiently - without boiling water," he said. Only 33 percent of the energy of an atom is harnessed through the use of heat. Rochau said many researchers have tried to find a way to harness more of the energy, but at Sandia they have not made much progress yet. "But, what we're excited about is making the system more safe," he said. Sandia National Laboratories is a government facility currently managed by Lockheed Martin. The company's contract ends in September 2003, and the Department of Energy may open up the managerial contract to competitive bidding. The UT System has been anticipated to place a bid. Charles Sorber, vice-chancellor for special engineering programs, said the UT System expects the Department of Energy to ask for bids soon. "One would expect something in the next few weeks," he said. Kevin Witt, president of the UT American Nuclear Society and a mechanical engineering graduate student, said Rochau's lecture illustrated the wide variety of research done at the facility. "They're kind of multi-faceted," Witt said. "They do research in a number of areas." He said that if the University receives the bid to manage the labs, students would benefit. "It would be a good way to get students involved with research going on around the nation," Witt said. Bob Libal, University Green Party member, said that in addition to Sandia's development of every non-nuclear aspect of the nation's nuclear weapons, such as delivery systems and containers, the company is developing "mini-nukes" that are for actual use rather than a deterrent. "We should be working on ways to make the world safer, decreasing conflict, and decreasing the amount of nuclear weapons, not increasing the likelihood of using them," he said. © 2002 The Daily Texan ***************************************************************** 67 Future of Paducah plant now uncertain The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News -- Monday, October 21, 2002 The Associated Press WASHINGTON -- As past and present workers of the Paducah uranium plant celebrate the facility's 50th anniversary this month, many wonder if the site will continue to provide them with the jobs they and their communities have come to depend on. USEC Inc. operates the Energy Department plant in Paducah and is the only U.S. company that enriches uranium for the commercial nuclear industry. USEC has signed an agreement with the government to build a new, more efficient plant within a decade in either Paducah or Piketon, Ohio, home to a now-shuttered uranium plant. More than 1,400 people work at the Paducah plant, making it the largest private employer in western Kentucky. Leon Owens, president of a local workers' union, says the community would have a hard time economically if it does not get the replacement plant. "The economic impact would be devastating," Owens said. "It would have a ripple effect throughout this entire area." USEC plans to decide by the end of the year whether Paducah or Piketon will become home to a demonstration project aimed at showcasing the technology it plans to use, which is known as centrifuge and is more efficient than the outdated gaseous diffusion process now used at Paducah. USEC hopes by building a successful demonstration project, it will be better able to lure financial partners to help build the commercial plant. Analysts predict that will cost at least $1 billion. Whichever community is chosen for the pilot project will have an edge, but not a guarantee, in the competition to win the commercial facility, according to USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle. Kentucky and Ohio officials are putting together financial incentive packages to win both the demonstration and commercial projects. The proposals are due to USEC by the end of the month. J.R. Wilhite, commissioner of Kentucky's Department of Community Development, would not provide details about the state's proposal but said it would be competitive. "We plan on getting the project," Wilhite said. Stuckle said the company was eager to see what both states come up with. "We're going to be looking at which state provides the greatest economic incentives as well as other non-economical factors," Stuckle said. Other factors that could affect the decision to build a plant in one community over the other include geology, existing infrastructure and electricity costs. Paducah is near the New Madrid fault, which means additional money would be needed to make the plant secure in the event of an earthquake. USEC invested millions of dollars in recent years to stabilize the existing plant, Stuckle said. Arch Johnston, director of the Center for Earthquake Research and information at the University of Memphis, said experts now know a lot more about the New Madrid fault and its threat to Paducah than they did when the government built the facility 50 years ago. "If we had known in 1952 what we know now, I don't think we would have built it there, because it's close enough to New Madrid to get some strong ground motion," Johnston said. The existing gaseous diffusion technology heats uranium into a gas and then filters it through separate buildings to separate the desired lighter isotopes from the heavier ones. Experts say that technology is thought to be less vulnerable to earthquake damage than centrifuge, which takes place in tall spinning cylinders that use gravity to separate uranium molecules. Another factor that could work against Paducah is that the Ohio facility is home to existing buildings designed by the government in the 1980s for centrifuge technology but then abandoned. USEC could use those buildings if it selects the Ohio site, lowering its capital costs. It would have to build new facilities in Paducah. Stuckle said low electricity rates at Paducah helped the company decide to keep that plant open and close the Piketon facility two years ago. While centrifuge uses less energy than gaseous diffusion, lower energy costs in coal-rich Kentucky could benefit Paducah's efforts to get the new plant. Wilhite said Paducah's current operations also help its bid. "Paducah continues to be the sole uranium enrichment operation for USEC," he said. "They have a work force that they value and know the capability of and those are tremendous strengths." In the end, the competition may not just be between Paducah and Piketon. A private consortium of U.S. and European companies has announced plans to build a uranium enrichment plant in Tennessee by 2007. Should the group succeed, it remains to be seen whether there is room in the U.S. market for two uranium enrichment plants. On the Net: USEC: http://www.usec.com/ [http://www.oakridger.com] All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 68 Fees to replace Womack as president of BWXT The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News -- Monday, October 21, 2002 Allen Womack, president and chief operating officer of BWX Technologies Inc., will retire from his position Dec. 31, a BWXT press release states. John A. Fees, president of BWXT Services, will assume Womack's duties on Jan. 1, 2003. For the remainder of the year, Womack and Fees will work together to ensure a smooth transition, the release states. BWX Technologies and Bechtel National Inc. manage and operate the Y-12 National Security Complex for the National Nuclear Security Administration. [http://www.oakridger.com] All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 69 Energy Secretary Abraham Hosts "Renewable Energy Roundtable" in South Dakota energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: October 18, 2002 SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham today hosted a"Renewable Energy Roundtable" in South Dakota. The Bush Administration's energy policy and the latest developments in the renewable energy fields of biofuels, wind energy, solar energy and electricity generation were discussed during the forum. Secretary Abraham was joined by Congressman John Thune (R-SD) along with local representatives from the biofuels and ethanol industry, state corn growers association, state rural electrical association, wind energy companies and alternative energy advocates. "President Bush and I are convinced that renewable energies must play a large role in meeting our challenging future energy needs and reducing our dependence on foreign oil," Secretary Abraham said. "For every improvement in renewable energy technology we develop, for every new megawatt of electricity or gallon of alternative fuel that is produced, we make our nation a little more secure." Secretary Abraham highlighted the recent award of $5.4 million to Broin and Associates Inc. of Sioux Falls, S.D. to develop a "Second Generation" dry mill biorefinery pilot project. This effort is a joint research and development project between the Department of Energy and Broin. The company will contribute $5.9 million to this project, bringing the project total to $11.3 million. The pilot project will be located at Broin's biorefinery in Scotland, S.D. "Broin will work in partnership with the Department of Energy to develop and perfect a dry mill biorefinery process with the aim of enhancing the economics of existing ethanol dry mills," Secretary Abraham said. "The end result is not just increased ethanol yields, but more competitive bioproducts such as plastics, paints and adhesives that are today made from petroleum. This can result in more markets for agricultural products, more profits for farmers and enhanced energy security for America." Increasing biomass energy production is a priority of President Bush, as outlined in his National Energy Policy. Biomass is organic matter such as plants and wood that can be used to provide heat, make fuel and generate electricity. Media Contact: Jill Schroeder, 202/586-4940 Release No. PR-02-220 ***************************************************************** 70 DOE Names James A. Turi Acting Manager of Oak Ridge Operations Office energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: October 18, 2002 WASHINGTON, DC - The Department of Energy (DOE) today announced that James A. Turi, the acting chief of staff of DOE's Office of Science, has been named acting manager of the Oak Ridge Operations Office, effective October 20. In his new position, Mr. Turi will be responsible for Energy Department programs in basic research and environmental management and uranium and engineering facilities located at Oak Ridge, Tenn., and in four other states. Mr. Turi will serve as acting manager of the Oak Ridge Operations Office until a permanent manager is named and reports for duty. Mr. Turi is replacing Michael Holland, who has served as acting manager of the Oak Ridge Operations Office since April 1, 2002. Mr. Holland is returning to his previous position as manager of DOE's Brookhaven Area Office in New York, also effective October 20. "Jim Turi has demonstrated skills and extensive experience in complex infrastructure management and such vital matters as safeguards and security and environment, safety and health," said Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director of the Office of Science. "Jim's leadership, professionalism, enthusiasm for science, and dedication to the public interest will serve the Oak Ridge Operations Office, the Energy Department and the local community well." "Mike Holland has done an outstanding job during his six months as acting manager of the Oak Ridge Operations Office," Dr. Orbach said. "He is returning to Long Island to resume his duties in the Brookhaven Area Office for family reasons." "Meanwhile, we are making headway in our search for a permanent manager of the Oak Ridge Operations Office," Dr. Orbach said. "We have identified a number of candidates, and interviews with them are being scheduled. While we cannot yet say when the selection process will be completed, we hope to be able to announce the new permanent manager soon." Mr. Turi began his federal career in 1968 with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and has held a variety of positions encompassing research and development, engineering and construction, facility operations and environmental cleanup. His experience extends from nuclear and magnetic fusion energy to environmental management to the deployment of radioisotope thermoelectric generators for the NASA Galileo and Ulysses missions. Mr. Turi has been acting chief of staff of the Office of Science since March 2002. Mr. Turi previously served as the acting deputy director for operations for the Office of Science from June 2001 until March 2002. In this position, Mr. Turi was the focal point within the SC Director's Office for field and laboratory management issues and concerns. His responsibilities included management and operational oversight of DOE's Chicago and Oak Ridge Operations Offices, the Berkeley and Stanford Site Offices, and their 10 associated research laboratories. Mr. Turi joined the Office of Science as associate director for laboratory operations and environment, safety, and health in July 2000. His responsibilities included providing leadership and corporate focus on project and infrastructure management, environment, safety, and health, and safeguards and security. Mr. Turi's most recent experience in DOE before joining the Office of Science included 10 years with the Environmental Management program. Frank Crescenzo, deputy manager of the Brookhaven Area Office, has served as acting manager at the Brookhaven Area Office during Mr. Holland's Oak Ridge posting. DOE's Office of Science is the largest single supporter of basic research in the physical sciences and the third largest federal sponsor of basic research in the United States. The Office of Science also manages 10 national laboratories and is considered one of the premier science organizations in the world. The Office of Science's budget was $3.3 billion in fiscal year 2002. Media Contact: Jeff Sherwood, 202/586-5806 Release No. PR-02-221 ***************************************************************** 71 Cleanup Work Begins At ORNL's Melton Valley NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Walter Perry, (865) 576-0885 www.oakridge.doe.gov [http://www.oakridge.doe.gov] October 15, 2002 [Melton Valley.jpg (134933 bytes)] OAK RIDGE, Tenn. – The U.S. Department of Energy has begun a major effort to clean up an area of the Oak Ridge Reservation that was used for radioactive waste disposal for over 50 years. The area, known as the Melton Valley Watershed, is the location for a large number of burial grounds, liquid waste seepage pits and trenches, and experimental facilities associated with research and development activities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). These former waste sites are the primary contributors to offsite spread of contaminants. The project will be completed in 2006 at a cost of approximately $275 million – a savings of approximately $85 million and 10 years sooner than earlier projections. "A combination of remedial actions will be used to address these problems," said ORNL Team Leader David Adler, "such as containment, stabilization, removal, treatment, monitoring, and land-use controls." The Melton Valley Watershed Record of Decision was signed by the Department of Energy (DOE), the State of Tennessee, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in September 2000. It calls for most of three Solid Waste Storage Areas (SWSA’s) (4, 5, and 6) to be capped. Some areas not capped will be excavated and disposed in either onsite or offsite disposal locations. The plan also calls for the demolition of several structures. "This will facilitate SWSA 4 cap installation," Adler said, "And reduce radiological exposure to workers during that project." Excavated material is being disposed in the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility, near the Y-12 National Security Complex. SWSAs 4 and 5 are the primary contributors to off-site migration of contaminants, and Melton Valley is the source of 90 percent of strontium and tritium discharged from DOE property into the Clinch River. Excavation of contaminated floodplain soils is being done adjacent to SWSA 4, in the north-central portion of Melton Valley. Spent nuclear fuel within SWSAs 5 and 6 has been retrieved, repackaged, and is awaiting shipment to the Idaho National Environmental Engineering Laboratory for disposal. Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) of the Old Hydrofracture facility has been completed, as well as the design for D&D of the New Hydrofracture facility. By the end of September, more than half of the 118 Hydrofracture wells will be plugged and abandoned. "The actions outlined in the ROD are the same as they were before the accelerated cleanup plan," Adler said. "But under that plan, we will accomplish it much sooner at a significantly lower cost." -DOE- Photo Caption: The final phase of the Metal Recovery Facility (Building 3505) D&D Project was the demolition of the hot cell structures. Workers spray water during the demolition to suppress any dust. R-02-041 ***************************************************************** 72 Chaos around the White House jelly jar - smh.com.au October 22 2002 The Boy Emperor's plans are not going well. But, writes Maureen Dowd, help is at hand ... The Boy Emperor picked up the morning paper and, stunned, dropped his juice box with the little straw attached. "Oh, man," he wailed. "North Korea's got nukes. Sheriff Musharraf was helping them. Al-Qaeda's blowing stuff up again. The Pentagon's speculating that the sniper might really be Qaeda decoy teams trying to distract the law while they plan a bio-blitzkrieg or a dirty bomb attack on the capital. "This is not the way my new doctrine was supposed to work. Condi and Rummy said once we finished off Saddam, nobody would mess with America again. Some people are actually talking about my doctrine leading to World War III!!!" The Boy Emperor was starting to feel bamboozled by his war tutors. He needed a fresh perspective. There was a guy on TV with a round face and deep voice running around Provence, London and Berlin, where he suggested Schroeder resign. He was pre-eminent on pre-emption. The Boy summoned him to explain the Bush doctrine. "Do I know you?" he asked his visitor. "I am the chairman of the Defence Policy Board," Richard Perle replied. "I am an adviser to Rumsfeld, a friend of Wolfowitz's and a thorn in Powell's medals. I'm killing time trying to get your foreign policy to rise. I'm known as the Prince of Darkness." "Why?" "I persuaded Reagan to ignore the weak-kneed, striped-pants set at the State Department and buy every weapon in sight until the Evil Empire was scared stiffer than a perfectly executed meringue." "But why are we going after a lunatic in Iraq for planning to make a bomb and not a lunatic in North Korea who already has bombs?" the Boy asked. "Iraq," Perle said, "is an easy kill." "But if North Korea can deter us by brandishing a nuclear weapon," the Boy pressed, "why can't we deter Saddam by brandishing a nuclear weapon?" "You must puncture the souffle before it rises," Perle instructed. "Why are we mad at North Korea for flouting its international agreements when we flout our international agreements?" the Boy wondered. "You cannot make sublime crepes suzette without a fire," Perle lectured. "Didn't you insist that Saddam and al-Qaeda were linked?" the Boy persisted. "We made that up," Perle shrugged. "You have to be imaginative, as Audrey Hepburn was in Sabrina when she offered to make Bogie a souffle out of saltines and eggs. As the Baron told Sabrina: 'A woman happily in love, she burns the souffle. A woman unhappily in love, she forgets to turn on the oven!"' "Huh?" the Boy said. "Tony and Colin told me to stop talking about 'regime change' and instead say, 'War is a last resort,' and stop talking about a 'pre-emptive strike' and instead say, 'War is not imminent."' "They're sissies," Perle said. "You cannot deliver the sashimi unless you use the blade." The Boy Emperor was more befuddled than ever. "Get me Condi!" he yelled. "And a peanut butter and jelly sandwich." The New York Times ***************************************************************** 73 Nuclear Solutions, Inc. Disburses Funds for Nuclear Wastewater Remediation Technology BW0267 OCT 18,2002 16:52 PACIFIC 19:52 EASTERN Business Editors WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 18, 2002--Today, Nuclear Solutions Inc. (OTCBB:NSOL) announced that on Monday, October 21, 2002, it is releasing the first disbursement of funds for the commercial development of GHR radioactive wastewater treatment technology. The funds are intended for the Institute for Industrial Mathematics, Inc (IIM), in Beer-Sheva, Israel, which is contracted with Nuclear Solutions, Inc. to develop the commercial-grade GHR wastewater treatment units. "The funding is being provided to us on an exceptional basis," said Patrick Herda, Vice president of Nuclear Solutions, Inc. "A private funder has committed to loaning us the money required to fulfill our contractual obligation with IIM for the commercial development of GHR technology as well as supporting market penetration activities in the U.S. The funder has done this based upon his confidence in the potential of GHR technology, the strength of our management team, and business model. It is also important to note that the funds are to be repaid to the lender after GHR operations begin based upon 1% of the profit generated by GHR technology over the course of 5 years," concluded Patrick Herda. "We've not made it a secret that our primary goal right now is to build shareholder value in the company by providing innovative products and services to the nuclear industry. I consider this just the first of multiple market opportunities that we will be discussing over the course of the next couple of years. Since the GHR program is now being funded, we are getting closer to being able to address a tremendous issue by treating billions of gallons of radioactive wastewater," Said John Dempsey President and CEO of Nuclear Solutions, Inc. Disclaimer: "Safe Harbor Statement" Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 Investors are cautioned that certain statements contained in this document may be deemed to be "forward-looking" statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "Act"). Forward-looking statements include statements which are predictive in nature, which depend upon or refer to future events or conditions, which include words such as "expects," "anticipates," "intends," "plans," "believes," "estimates," or similar expressions. In addition, any statements concerning future financial performance (including future revenues, earnings or growth rates), ongoing business strategies or prospects, and possible future actions, which may be provided by management, are also forward-looking statements as defined by the Act. Some of the factors that could significantly impact the forward-looking statements in this press release include, but are not limited to: insufficient cash flow to continue to fund the development and marketing of the Company's products and technology; a rejection of the Company's products and technologies by the marketplace; and disputes as to the Company's intellectual property rights. Forward-looking statements are based upon current expectations and projections about future events and are subject to risks, uncertainties, and assumptions about the company, its technology, economic and market factors and the industries in which the company does business, among other things. These statements are not guarantees of future performance. More detailed information about those factors affecting the company is contained in the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. NOTES TO EDITORS: 1. Water contaminated with tritium is produced in significant quantities as a by-product of nuclear reactor operations and weapons complex activities. While Tritium has a half-life of only 12.5 years, it poses a significant heath risk since tritiated water is absorbed by plants, animals and humans like ordinary water. Tritium can also become transformed into other chemicals or proteins needed by the body, as well as integrating itself into DNA. Tritium is also known to affect developing fetuses. Regulations for restricting the concentrations of tritium in drinking water are based primarily on cancer risk to adults. 2. The GHR process, which is envisioned for rapid processing as well as low energy usage, has the potential to offer a cost-effective solution to industry as well as be profitable to operate. 3. NSOL plans to capitalize on GHR technology by forming strategic alliances and joint ventures with well-established leaders in the nuclear cleanup industry. Continued revenue streams are expected through operation and licensing of the technology. --30--SAM/se* CONTACT: For Nuclear Solutions, Inc.: John Dempsey 202/772-3133 [jdempsey@nucsol.com] or For Due Diligence Packages: Paul Kuntz, 800/518-1988 [paulk@topstock.com] KEYWORD: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ISRAEL INTERNATIONAL AFRICA/MIDDLE EAST INDUSTRY KEYWORD: ENVIRONMENT ENERGY UTILITIES MEDICAL SOURCE: Nuclear Solutions, Inc. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************