*****************************************************************
12/26/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.334
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 AU: Embassy plan dumped amid nuclear clash
2 Pyongyang denies restarting nuclear program -
3 Analysis: North Korea - a time bomb
4 Taiwan: Opposition obstructs renewable energy bill
5 Cameco, TCPL reviews differ on Bruce deal*
6 The Korean Crisis
7 N. Korea adds fuel rods to reactor at center of standoff with U.S.
8 North Korean missile capable of delivering nuclear warhead
9 Iraq showing unusual interest in Ukraine nuclear laboratory*
10 NK Moves Fresh Fuel Rods to Reactor
11 Japanese PM Criticizes North's Nuclear Gamble
12 China Calls for Dialogue on Nuclear Issue
13 Moscow Urges Caution on NK Situation
14
15
16 Niger denies selling uranium to Iraq
17 There's no proof: Moscow
18 N Korea nuclear moves alarm UN
19 Russia's, Iran's Atomic Energy Ministers Find Cooperation Very
20 Kim Dae-Jung wants leading role for Seoul in nuclear talks
21 US: DoD Official Frames Upcoming Budget Strategies
22 A clear and present danger to the north -
23 Global Nuke Threat Grows
NUCLEAR REACTORS
24 Sweden clears reactor for controversial fuel
25 North Korea Moves Fuel Rods Into Reactor
26 US: AU: Critics say study on nuclear plant attack is mere whitewash
27 US: Plant run by Nuclear Management is fined (12/26/02)*
28 US: Analysis of Nuclear Power Plants Shows Aircraft Crash Would Not
29 US: Report: Nuke plant can take plane hit; some analysts disagree
30 Russia forges ahead with Iran reactor
31 Japan To Expand Subsidies To Promote Pluthermal Pwr-Kyodo
32 US: NRC: LSNARP charter renewal
NUCLEAR SAFETY
33 US: Wise woman seeks answers to cancer rates in Southwest Virginia*
34 Expounding a New View of Accidents
35 Proposed bill would widen KI pill distribution radius
36 US: FR Doc 02-32511
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
37 Taos demand action on waste
38 Taiwan: Timetable urged for Orchid Island waste
39 AU: Consultation sadly lacking (waste transit)
40 Nuclear Waste Plant to be Launched
41 Sweden approves limited MOX use
42 Labor's anti-nuclear waste stance just 'crocodile tears' -
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
43 Nixon Ordered Nuke Alert to Signal USSR
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
44 Residents file lawsuit over blaze at Hanford
OTHER NUCLEAR
45 Lichens Are Surprisingly Precise Air Quality Monitors, BYU
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 AU: Embassy plan dumped amid nuclear clash
- smh.com.au
By Mark Riley, Political Correspondent December 27 2002
The Howard Government has shelved plans to open an embassy in
Pyongyang as international pressure builds on North Korea to end
the tense stand-off over its nuclear weapons program.
Australia has warned North Korea that normalising relations
between the countries cannot proceed while the regime refuses to
comply with nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
The rift between Pyongyang and the United States widened,
meanwhile, with new evidence yesterday that the North Koreans are
moving fresh fuel rods into a major nuclear facility.
North Korea denies this is part of a plan to reactivate its
nuclear weapons program, but South Korea has also voiced deep
concern over the developments.
The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has warned that
Washington is "perfectly capable" of taking military action to
force North Korea into nuclear compliance while at the same time
acting against Iraq. ");document.write(" advertisement
"); } } // -->
North Korea has responded by accusing the US of risking a nuclear
war, and vowing to fight to the end if provoked.
The crisis has complicated Australia's foreign policy objectives
at a time when the Government is preparing to persuade the people
that following the US into a war in Iraq is in Australia's
national interest.
Australian involvement in another Gulf war will become even more
uncertain as North Korea's posturing refocuses attention on more
immediate regional threats.
Senior government sources confirmed yesterday that Australia was
preparing to dump its commitment to a Pyongyang embassy this
financial year.
North Korea's ambassador to Australia, Mr Chon Jae-hong, will be
told of the decision in the next few days.
The embassy, which was to have been a marker of North Korea's
gradual emergence into the international community, was to be
opened before July as part of a reciprocal agreement last year.
North Korea has already opened its embassy in Canberra.
Despite the decision, the Federal Government will continue
supporting international humanitarian relief efforts in North
Korea. Australia has provided about $30 million in food and
medical aid since 1995 and is committed to further assistance as
part of the May 2000 agreement to normalise relations between the
countries.
A spokesman for the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, declined
to comment yesterday on the embassy decision.
The Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, Kevin Rudd, said
Australia should establish a lower-level mission in North Korea
to ensure that its diplomatic messages were getting to the
Pyongyang leadership.
The latest developments follow warnings this week by the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that North Korea was
moving to reactivate its Yongbyon reactor, which has been
mothballed under a 1994 non-proliferation pact.
The US is concerned that technology at the plant could be used to
extract plutonium from fuel rods that could in turn be used to
build nuclear warheads.
A commentary on Radio Pyongyang, reported by South Korea's Yonhap
news agency, has accused Washington of trying to stir up public
opinion internationally.
"Our measure has got nothing to do with plans to develop nuclear
weapons," the report said. "Our republic constantly maintains an
anti-nuclear, peace-loving position."
North Korea insists that it has a right to possess nuclear
weapons and says the US must sign a non-aggression pact as a
basis for talks on their differences.
The IAEA governing board is planning to meet on January 6 to
decide whether to give Pyongyang a chance to resume co-operation
or put the matter to the United Nations Security Council.
Copyright © 2002. The Sydney Morning Herald. | contact us
*****************************************************************
2 Pyongyang denies restarting nuclear program -
smh.com.au
December 27 2002
North Korea has begun moving fresh fuel rods into a mothballed
nuclear reactor at the centre of a diplomatic standoff with the
United States, deepening concerns it was preparing to restart
facilities that experts say could produce nuclear weapons within
months.
North Korea denied its move was a prelude to developing weapons,
saying it needed to reactivate the facility to generate
electricity.
"Our republic constantly maintains an anti-nuclear, peace-loving
position," Radio Pyongyang said. The report was carried by South
Korea's Yonhap news agency.
The communist nation began moving fuel rods on Wednesday into the
5-megawatt reactor at its main nuclear complex in Yongbyon, 80
kilometres north of its capital, Pyongyang, said Chun Young-woo,
director of the disarmament and nuclear energy division at South
Korea's Foreign Ministry.
Chun did not say whether North Korea has actually begun loading
fuel into the Soviet-designed reactor. The move was apparently
intended to ratchet up pressure on the United States and its
allies, which recently cut off oil shipments to North Korea in
response to revelations that it had been secretly developing
nuclear weapons in violation of an eight-year-old agreement.
Chun cited information from the UN International Atomic Energy
Agency, which has inspectors at the facility.
Earlier this month North Korea announced plans to restart its
nuclear facilities, frozen under a 1994 agreement with the United
States and its allies. It has removed UN monitoring equipment
from the reactor and three other key nuclear facilities.
IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky told the British Broadcasting Corp
that the nuclear watchdog's on-site monitors had seen the North
Koreans move some 400 fresh fuel rods on Wednesday.
The agency has three inspectors staying in North Korea visually
monitoring the activities at the nuclear facilities. The number
of inspectors was increased from two to three this week.
The reactor and three other North Korean nuclear facilities were
sealed under the 1994 agreement, which required Pyongyang to
freeze its nuclear program in exchange for energy sources
provided by the United States and its allies.
North Korea says the dispute can be settled only if Washington
agrees to sign a nonaggression treaty. Recent weeks have seen a
sharp increase in anti-US rhetoric warning that the situation on
the Korean Peninsula was "on the brink of war."
The United States, which is preparing for a possible war against
Iraq, is seeking a peaceful settlement to the issue but has ruled
out any talks before the communist state gives up its nuclear
ambitions.
The three other facilities from which North Korea has removed UN
monitoring gear include a storage area holding 8,000 spent fuel
rods, a radioactive laboratory used to reprocess spent fuel rods
and a plant that makes fuel rods.
The IAEA has said there are no signs of moves by the North
Koreans to reprocess spent fuel rods or restart the laboratory.
US officials say that the 8,000 spent fuel rods hold enough
weapons-grade plutonium to make several nuclear bombs. North
Korea is suspected of already having one or two atomic bombs.
South Korean President Kim Dae-jung said today that his
government would never tolerate the North's efforts to develop
nuclear weapons, but stressed that the issue should be resolved
peacefully through dialogue.
"We must closely cooperate with the United States, Japan and
other friendly countries to prevent the situation from further
deteriorating into a crisis," Kim told a special Cabinet meeting.
His remarks were released to the press by his spokeswoman, Park
Sun-sook.
A representative of South Korean President-elect Roh Moo-hyun
attended the meeting. Roh, who takes office in February, plans to
exchange special envoys with the United States in January to
discuss the nuclear standoff.
The standoff has raised fears of another crisis on the Korean
Peninsula like one in 1994 that some say nearly led to war. It
was defused when North Korea agreed to freeze and eventually
dismantle its plutonium-based nuclear program in exchange for
energy supplies.
Tensions rose after North Korea revealed to visiting US diplomats
in October that it had a new covert nuclear weapons program that
uses enriched uranium.
North Korea insists that its decision to restart its reactor was
to generate electricity, but US officials say that power to
obtained from the reactor is negligible.
AP
Copyright © 2002. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
3 Analysis: North Korea - a time bomb
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific |
Tuesday, 24 December, 2002, 18:36 GMT
[North Korean soldier looks over the border toward South Korea]
North Korean muscle-flexing threatens region's stability
By Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online world affairs correspondent
North Korea is a crisis that just won't go away. And it could get
worse.
Even though a number of experts have said that the government of
the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il is engaging in a political game of
brinksmanship, it is nevertheless getting nearer and nearer to
producing a nuclear bomb.
According to Dr Gary Samore of the International Institute for
Strategic Studies in London, the Yongbyon plant which it has
re-opened could start producing plutonium for a bomb in about a
year.
Attacking us would be like] jumping in the fire holding wood
North Korea radio on 24 December
That is the deadline, therefore, for a diplomatic solution. It
does allow time, but not much, given the complex nature of the
crisis.
And if North Korea does make the bomb, the whole equation in the
region will change.
North Korea is unlikely to give it up. South Korea and Japan
might well think of following the same path.
That is, if the United States has not attacked the North first.
That by itself could provoke a new Korean war.
No wonder that the United States, preoccupied with Iraq, is
willing to follow diplomacy over North Korea.
Although, as the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asserted,
the United States could fight two wars at the same time, it
obviously does not want to do so.
There will clearly have to be a huge effort made, and very soon,
to get the whole 1994 agreement with North Korea restarted.
[Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in Pyongyang in
2000]
Two years ago US relations with the North seemed to be improving
Under that agreement, North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear
weapons programme in exchange for the construction of two modern
nuclear plants to provide it with electricity.
According to the "political" theory, North Korea has been very
dissatisfied with the 1994 agreement because the two nuclear
plants were started only this past summer, long overdue.
Survival strategy
And it has had problems in getting the supplies of fuel oil
promised by the United States to tide it over.
That oil was stopped altogether following North Korea's
admission in October - according to the Americans - that it was
re-embarking on its nuclear weapons development.
The suspicious North Korean leadership, having seen the fate of
communist dictatorships elsewhere and the possible fate of Saddam
Hussein, detects plots to remove it from power.
This means that it doesn't just conduct diplomacy; it conducts a
strategy of survival. Always ready to increase the pressure and
go to the brink.
Its rhetoric, as colourful as anything from the past 50 years,
gives a clue to its mentality.
Its radio commentary on 24 December accused the "Bush group" as
it calls President Bush and his administration, of trying "to
achieve its evil plot of militarily crushing us."
"There is no belligerent band of thieves in the world like the
Bush group," it declared.
[Aerial view of the Yongbyon plant]
The North has begun reactivating facilities at Yongbyon plant
But it warned the United States against attacking North Korea,
which would be like "jumping in the fire holding wood",
presumably an old Korean proverb, and readily understood
everywhere.
Nobody doubts that North Korea would use the firepower of its
million-man army in any war. The South Korean capital, Seoul, is
within artillery range.
The North's offered solution - a non-aggression pact with the
United States - has been rejected by Washington.
No American government likes "non-aggression pacts".
Communist governments have traditionally offered them. The West
has traditionally rejected them, arguing that they are either
unnecessary or would give inviolability to a dangerous
government.
Peace trip?
An armed conflict cannot be ruled out. President Clinton
prepared an attack on the North's nuclear facilities in 1994, it
has recently emerged, and according to the South Koreans, was
only persuaded not to carry it out after appeals from them.
It was in 1994 that former US President Jimmy Carter went to
North Korea and negotiated the freeze-for-reactors deal which was
later signed in Geneva.
Jimmy Carter has now won the Nobel Peace prize. Time maybe for
another trip to Pyongyang?
The newly elected South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun is also
likely to urge negotiations. He came to power partly on
anti-American sentiment.
It is always a matter of regret to the Americans that those they
seek to defend (there are 30,000 troops in South Korea) often
turn against them.
But talk has so far got nowhere.
And if a war in Iraq goes well for the United States, it could
then be ready for a confrontation with North Korea.
It might not want one, but one might be thrust upon it. [ ]
© MMII | News Sources | Privacy
*****************************************************************
4 Taiwan: Opposition obstructs renewable energy bill
eTaiwanNews.com/
2002-12-26 / Taiwan News, Contributing Writer / By Dennis
Engbarth
Objections by opposition legislators to proposed favorable
pricing mechanisms stalled a review of a proposed bill to
encourage private investment in renewable energies yesterday.
The Cabinet approved the draft "statute for the development of
renewable energy" November 15 for review by the Legislature.
The new bill will enhance official support and bolster tax
incentives and price support for renewable energies, including
wind power, solar and fuel cells.
Following the examples of Germany, Denmark and other countries,
the Cabinet's draft law would offer favorable price incentives to
renewable energy producers until Taiwan's installed capacity of
renewables reached a total of 6,500 megawatts or about 12 percent
of the island's total power generating capacity.
The Legislative Yuan's committee on economic and energy affairs
began hearing the Cabinet's draft statute and two similar
versions offered by two DPP legislators.
The Cabinet's version mandates that the state-owned Taiwan Power
Co. must buy power generated by renewable sources at a rate of
NT$2 per kilowatt.
Administrative Vice Economics Minister Chen Ruey-long noted that
"most of the cost of investing in renewables lies in the initial
purchase and installation of equipment."
Given the uncertainty of output for renewables, Chen said that
"the main consideration lies in a guarantee of a return on
investment cost in the early period of operation," Chen said.
Chen said that studies of pilot projects in Taiwan and
international examples indicated that a base price of NT$2 per
kilowatt was necessary to allow investors to make an accurate
estimate of investment benefits as well as allowing a precise
calculation of the costs of price supports.
The other two versions would mandate a NT$2.5 per kilowatt
purchase price for the first year, which would be reduced to
NT$2.0 per kilowatt after five years.
Review of the statute was stalled over objections to all three
pricing schemes from opposition legislators.
Kuomintang Legislator Hsu Shu-po questioned the need for the
incentives and the Cabinet's push for the law.
"Why is the Cabinet so urgent about pressing this law when our
industrialists now lack neither power or water," asked Hsu. He
expressed support for more investment in plants in power-short
northern Taiwan and questioned whether the new capacity in
renewable sources would be used to retire nuclear power plants.
DPP Legislator Lai Chin-lin said that the objections of the
opposition were misplaced.
"After renewable energy sources develop for four or five years,
then we can judge the structure of energy supply, but if this
bill fails to pass, it will be impossible to develop renewable
energies in Taiwan while other countries are proceeding rapidly
to shift their energy systems to more sustainable and competitive
patterns," Lai told the Taiwan News.
© 2001-2002 Taiwan News. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
5 Cameco, TCPL reviews differ on Bruce deal*
The Globe and Mail /globeandmail.com
By ALLAN ROBINSON INVESTMENT REPORTER
Thursday, December 26, 2002 ? Page B8
Investment analysts are taking different views on the decision by
*Cameco Corp. *and *TransCanada PipeLines Ltd. *to each own a
31.6-per-cent stake in *Bruce Power LP*.
It's a good deal for Cameco, analysts say. Several have increased
their profit forecasts and share price targets for the company.
But there is far less certainty about whether it's a good thing
for TransCanada to own the same size stake.
Analysts generally are taking a lukewarm approach to its entry
into the nuclear reactor business.
Cameco has agreed to increase its stake in Bruce Power to 31.6
per cent from 15 per cent for $198-million.
TransCanada and a unit of the Ontario Municipal Employees
Retirement Board are each paying $376-million for their
31.6-per-cent stake.
The stakes are being bought from financially troubled *British
Energy PLC*.
The analysts at National Bank Financial are split on the deal's
impact on the two companies.
National Bank's Cameco analysts increased their target price on
Cameco's stock this week to $47 a share from $37.
They like the acquisition of Bruce Power and also anticipate
Cameco will spin off its gold mining assets. The analysts
forecast rising profits from the Bruce facilities as shutdown
reactors are brought back on-line. They also expect higher
uranium prices, which Cameco mines.
The bank's pipeline analysts have kept an "underperform" rating
on TransCanada because of what they view as a lack of growth in
its traditional businesses. They also said in a report on Tuesday
that there is uncertainty about "the potential cost reductions,
capacity factors and annual costs of the Bruce complex."
The decision by TransCanada to enter the nuclear business adds a
new degree of risk to its gas pipeline and power-generation
portfolio of assets and results in only a slight improvement to
profit, several analysts said.
TransCanada has minimized the risks through insurance, a backout
agreement and forward sales contracts, and it has protection
under federal legislation, Raymond James Canada Ltd. said.
The nuclear facilities are being leased from *Ontario Power
Generation Corp.*, which will continue to own them. That company
will assume any risk associated with disposing of spent nuclear
fuel and future decommissioning costs, Raymond James said.
Generally, the outlook by analysts for Cameco is far rosier.
UBS Warburg Inc. has increased its 2003 profit forecast for
Cameco to $1.81 a share from $1.26 as a result of the Bruce Power
deal.
*****************************************************************
6 The Korean Crisis
The New York Times
December 26, 2002*
North Korea's decision to reopen a plutonium reprocessing plant
and disable international monitoring equipment at the site is an
extremely threatening move that puts the rogue regime on a course
to building new nuclear weapons within a matter of a few months.
Since pre-emptive military action to disable the plant and other
North Korean nuclear installations could not likely be conducted
without igniting a catastrophic war on the Korean Peninsula, the
United States and its allies must find a peaceful way to persuade
Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program. Even though Kim
Jong Il's autocratic regime has a history of negotiating in bad
faith, as shown by its breach of a 1994 agreement, diplomacy
still looks more promising than the Bush administration's wishful
policy of trying to prevail by simply isolating Pyongyang.
While Washington is preoccupied with Iraq, North Korea has
abruptly re-emerged as an ominous threat to international
security. Given its erratic leadership, its record of exporting
missile and other military technologies to American foes and its
rekindled nuclear weapons program, North Korea is at least as
threatening to global security as Iraq, and probably more so.
American intelligence officials suspect that North Korea already
has one or two nuclear weapons. North Korea has missiles that can
strike Japan and may soon have intercontinental missiles.
In an effort to curtail North Korea's weapons programs, the
Clinton administration reached a deal with Pyongyang in 1994. In
exchange for oil shipments and international assistance in
building nuclear power reactors that would not produce material
easily upgraded into bomb-making elements, North Korea agreed to
forgo its plutonium-based nuclear program. This fall, confronted
with hard American intelligence, North Korea admitted it was
pursuing an alternative uranium-based program. The Bush
administration reimposed economic sanctions in response, and
North Korea has now decided to reactivate a reprocessing program
that extracts plutonium from spent reactor fuel.
In deciding how to manage the escalating crisis, the Bush
administration is understandably wary of rewarding bad behavior
and sending a signal to other nations that rich rewards await
those who violate nonproliferation agreements. But by itself,
engaging in negotiations does not amount to appeasement.
Washington could pursue talks without necessarily rushing to lift
the economic sanctions, or forswearing the possibility of
pursuing sterner measures in the future.
The alternative policy of refusing to engage North Korea unless
and until it abandons its nuclear weapons program only serves
Pyongyang's ends and is unlikely to isolate it. That is because
the Communist regime is astutely trying to drive a wedge between
Washington and Seoul. South Korean public opinion strongly favors
further engagement. The recent election of Roh Moo Hyun, who
campaigned on a platform of reconciliation with the North and
more independence from Washington, will only embolden Pyongyang's
eagerness to test the solidity of the half-century-old
Seoul-Washington alliance. President-elect Roh takes office in
late February and it would be a bad idea to hand him a crisis in
relations with Washington as his first challenge.
The Bush administration must engage in multilateral talks to
diffuse the crisis. It must continue to press China and Russia to
use their leverage with Kim Jong Il to advance certain points.
One is that the international community cannot tolerate the
existence of North Korea's nuclear weapons program, and that
Pyongyang cannot expect new security guarantees or economic aid
until it shows a willingness to abandon it. Another is that any
new deal must have ironclad, on-site monitoring and inspection
requirements. Though ultimately detected, North Korea's
uranium-based program remained secret for far too long.
Such a stern but diplomatic approach strikes us as more likely to
moderate North Korea's conduct and to avert an explosive
confrontation. It will also solidify our alliance with South
Korea and other regional players. As with Iraq, Washington will
have a stronger case to make in favor of alternative action down
the road, if needed, if it first engages in diplomacy.
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
*****************************************************************
7 N. Korea adds fuel rods to reactor at center of standoff with U.S.
/ *). *
* *
* Firstly, Kim is determined to retain his independence of action
in foreign and state policy. Second, by weaving his munitions
industry and nuclear weapons production into Middle East and Gulf
flashpoints, he gains leverage on world issues and breaks down
the pressures on him by spreading his wings far from his
frontiers. This makes it hard for Washington to deal with the
North Korean nuclear program as a purely Asian issue. *
* *
* Pyongyang has its hand in nuclear programs and missile
technology transfers with several Middle Eastern countries,
Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran and Iraq. Step by step, its engineers
and technology have been quietly investing in the Libyan-Egyptian
al Kufra nuclear center (where Iraqi nuclear scientists are also
employed); its long-range missile components are assembled in
Egyptian factories near Alexandria, Syria’s medium-range missile
assembly plant and chemical and biological weapons laboratories
near Hama in the north use North Korean components and technology
and, as we reported last month, North Korea transferred nuclear
manufacturing facilities, including uranium enrichment equipment,
to secret Iranian sites at Natanz and Arak. These are all
multibillion projects. *
* *
* Any US military action in the Persian Gulf and Middle East
would have to take those activities into account. In order to
neutralize North Korea’s leverage in the Middle East, the United
States has few options: *
* *
* A. Negotiate North Korea’s disengagement from the Middle East
and the Arab world. This would entail unacceptable American
compromises ith regard to the scope and aims of North Korea’s
nuclear program in Asia. *
* *
* B. A personal appeal by President George W. Bush to the new
Chinese president, Hu Jintao, and Russian president Vladimir
Putin, asking them to lean hard on their North Korean neighbor to
make him accommodate Washington’s demands and terminate his
nuclear weapons program immediately and unconditionally. *
* *
* *DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s* sources report that Bush did exactly that
when he visited Beijing and Moscow last May, when Hu’s
predecessor, Jiang Zemin, was still in office. He did not mince
his words, warning both leaders that their relations with
Washington were on the line over this issue. *
* *
* The US President was astounded when he found himself politely
but effectively rebuffed. *
* *
* In fact, senior US administration officials have come to
believe that Moscow and Beijing have a vested interest in North
Korea’s nuclear and missile export programs to the Middle East.
Our sources estimate they may be clearing up to one billion
dollars a year each through the contribution of components or
technology to some of those transactions. *
* *
* For the moment, *DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s* sources in Washington
report, the Bush administration is divided over whether or not to
tough it out with Kim Jong-Il – though not necessarily along the
same lines as the attitudes on Saddam Hussein. *
* *
* Secretary of State Colin Powell, the mandarins at State and CIA
Director George Tenet prefer to defuse the crisis by diplomacy
and steer clear of military confrontation. Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and National Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice go along with this view - less because
of the inherent hazards of nuclear war than for fear it will
deflect the United States from its central thrust against Iraq. *
* *
* War with North Korea would also be costly – and not only in
terms of manpower and lives lost. Experts put the price of US
military action on the Korean Peninsula at about $100 billion –
on top of the $150 billion to $200 billion cost of waging war on
Iraq. It is doubtful whether the US economy could stand the
strain of an outlay that large over so short a time. *
* *
* The pro-diplomacy faction is challenged by section heads in the
CIA, as well as US military commanders, who reject such American
assurances as the one Powell issued on December 16 -that the US
has no plans to attack North Korea – as letting Pyongyang believe
it is getting away with blackmail. It will only harden its
position, they warn. Saddam too might be encouraged to follow
North Korea’s example and try his hand at military or terrorist
threats *
* *
* On one point, at least, the hard-line faction in Washington was
soon vindicated. While US officials worked the phone, the
ultimatums kept on coming. Rumsfeld responded by declaring the
United States could fight on two fronts, Iraq and North Korea – a
statement quickly damped by the White House. *
* *
* Washington is still handling Kim with diplomatic finesse.
However, eventually, the Bush administration may be forced into
the narrow option of confronting North Korea alone, as is likely
to happen in the case of Iraq. Its task will be complicated by
having to grapple with North Korea’s nuclear initiatives and
massive ballistic missile exports in two world regions: at home
in Asia and in the Middle East, where Kim Jong-Il has spread his
weapons of mass destruction proliferation web wide. *
*Copyright 2002 DEBKA/file/. All Rights Reserved.*
*****************************************************************
9 Iraq showing unusual interest in Ukraine nuclear laboratory*
By MARK MACKINNON
Thursday, December 26, 2002 ? Page A1
KIEV -- It sits now, almost forgotten, in a downtrodden nuclear
research institute in Eastern Ukraine: 75 kilograms of
weapons-grade uranium. Enough material to construct three nuclear
bombs.
Not far from where the uranium is stored at the Kharkiv Institute
of Physics and Technology is a fourth-floor office in a
Soviet-style office block on Kharkiv's Leninsky Prospekt that
happens to sport Iraqi flags on either side of the door. Western
diplomats call it one of the clearest suggestions that Iraq
wishes to build a nuclear weapon.
According to officials of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
in Ukraine, the office of Yuri Orshansky, a Ukrainian businessman
who was named Iraq's honorary consul to Kharkiv two years ago, is
one case of smoke definitely betraying a fire. It's not by
chance, they believe, that Iraq set up diplomatic representation
in a city that was once a centre for the Soviet Union's
nuclear-weapons research.
Iraq has sent three trade delegations to Kharkiv in the past four
years. One of them was given an official tour of the Institute of
Physics and Technology.
"It looks blatant, and it is blatant," a NATO official said.
"There's all sorts of military interest by Iraq in Kharkiv."
According to a report released this year by British intelligence,
if Iraq could acquire even one-third of the uranium known to be
stored at the institute, it could have nuclear weapons within 12
months.
The apparent Iraqi interest in Kharkiv brings back a nightmare
scenario that has worried the West since the collapse of the
Soviet Union 11 years ago. When Ukraine achieved independence, it
immediately became the world's third-largest nuclear power,
trailing only Russia and the United States, and at the same time
lost much of its financial ability either to ensure the security
of its nuclear installations or to pay the scientists there
properly.
Fifty thousand weapons scientists once worked in the city of
Kharkiv alone, and many of them now are paid just $6 or $7 a day.
Their laboratories are no longer world-class; in some cases, they
are not even properly heated. The city is also home to Khartron,
one of the world's largest missile-technology plants.
"Most of the scientists in Ukraine are in very difficult
financial situations," said Yves Carmel, a Canadian who heads the
Science and Technology Centre in Ukraine, an institute funded by
Canada, the United States and the European Union that works to
employ Ukrainian weapons scientists in other, peaceful,
scientific fields.
Although Ukraine eventually agreed to give up its functioning
nuclear arsenal in exchange for Western aid money, there remains
in the country a potentially dangerous mix of loosely guarded
nuclear materials and underemployed scientists who might be
tempted by a big-money offer to defect to a rogue state.
Mr. Orshansky, many here believe, did just that. An engineer by
trade, he now proudly displays the emblem of Iraq's ruling Baath
party above the door of his Kharkiv office. When a team of U.S.
and British weapons experts travelled to Ukraine last month and
asked to interview him about weapons-sale allegations, they were
told he was in Baghdad celebrating Saddam Hussein's victory in a
recent national referendum on his leadership.
In an interview last year with a Ukrainian defence-industry
publication, Mr. Orshansky said he had made more than 40 trips to
Baghdad since 1993 and suggested that he would, if asked, work to
buy nuclear material on Iraq's behalf.
"On some issues, we have begun to work with Iraq in order to
create conditions so that orders are placed with Ukraine," he was
quoted as saying. "Even if they want to create a nuclear bomb, we
will study this."
Whether he has ever actually bought any weapons material on
Iraq's behalf is unclear. Western experts say tracing Iraq's
dealings in the arms market is difficult, since Mr. Hussein's
regime often uses middlemen and circuitous delivery routes. A
Western diplomat here said "there's plenty of evidence" that Mr.
Orshansky shipped weapons to Baghdad, but refused to share any of
the alleged proof. The Kharkiv Institute says it has never sold
-- and would never sell -- nuclear material to Iraq or anyone
else. Director Oleksiy Yehorov says the uranium is to be used
domestically for energy production. He says the lab's security
has been upgraded, and that the uranium in Kharkiv is as secure
as that at top sites in Western Europe and North America.
"The uranium cannot be sold to anybody, no matter who offers to
buy it and what their reasons are," Mr. Yehorov told the
Ukrainian news agency, UNIAN.
But to the chagrin of the U.S. State Department, the Ukrainian
government has refused to give up the uranium, a step Yugoslavia
took earlier this year in a high-profile deal that saw 45
kilograms of enriched uranium from the Vinca Institute near
Belgrade taken to Russia to be processed.
Recent revelations have made the U.S. administration even more
suspicious of Ukrainian intentions, especially a sensational
audio recording allegedly made by a former bodyguard of President
Leonid Kuchma that appears to catch Mr. Kuchma personally
authorizing the $100-million (U.S.) sale of the Kolchuga advanced
radar system to Iraq two years ago, in direct contravention of
United Nations sanctions.
Kolchuga is a passive radar system that tracks aircraft without
giving off the telltale "ping" that tells pilots they've been
spotted. If Iraq were to acquire the system, the British and U.S.
governments say, the danger to the allies' pilots patrolling the
no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq would greatly
increase.
Though Mr. Orshansky's name has turned up on documents that UN
weapons inspectors found in Baghdad during the last round of
weapons inspections in the late 1990s, Ukraine accredited him as
Iraq's representative in Kharkiv in 2000. That accreditation was
revoked only this year after the Kolchuga scandal broke.
"The Iraqis are trying hard now to get as much military equipment
from whoever will sell it," a Western diplomat said.
"Ukraine is one of those who will sell."
© 2002 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
10 NK Moves Fresh Fuel Rods to Reactor
Digital Chosunilbo (English Edition) : Daily News in English
Updated Dec.26,2002 16:09 KST
by Kwon Kyun-bok (kkb@chosun.com)
North Korea has begun moving new fuel rods from a formerly sealed
storage area to restart its 5MW nuclear reactor at Yongbyon
according to a government official Thursday. He said the reactor,
which was run from 1986 to 1994 could be operational in as little
as two months, confirming comments made by the International
Atomic Energy Agency, Wednesday. Operations at the 5MW reactor
had been frozen under the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework with the
United States.
IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said in an interview with Reuters,
the United Nations agency had confirmed that Pyongyang was moving
fresh fuel to the reactor. Gwozedcky also said North Korean
technicians had broken most of the seals and disabled UN
surveillance cameras at all four nuclear facilities in Yongbyon,
but added no work was being done at the laboratory capable of
extracting plutonium from spent fuel rods.
In related news President Kim Dae-jung told a ministerial meeting
that the government must strengthen cooperation with the United
States, Japan, and other allies for a peaceful resolution to the
North Korea nuclear crisis. President Kim also decided to
activate various dialogue channels with Pyongyang to persuade the
Stalinist state to give up its nuclear ambitions.
Kim expressed grave concern that despite the international
community's efforts to resolve the issue in a peaceful manner,
the North has begun to reactivate its nuclear facilities, further
aggravating the situation. He noted Pyongyang was violating the
Non Proliferation Treaty, treaties to keep the Korean peninsula
nuclear free, and the IAEA Safety Protocol, as well as the 1994
agreement. Kim said he could not accept these violations.
Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Lee tae-shik met
with his Japanese counterpart, Hitoshi Tanaka and pledged
cooperation in dealing with the issue.
Meanwhile, as North Korea begins the full-scale reactivation of
the nuclear system, the IAEA has increased the its number of
on-site inspectors to three from the previous two. Reports
indicate the three are keeping their eyes on the situation and
there has been no restrictions over their daily activities.
The agency spokesman said North Korea estimates the reactor could
be up and running in one to two months but the IAEA believed it
would take longer. The IAEA governing board is planning to meet
on January 6 to adopt a special resolution demanding North Korea
withdraw its lifting of the nuclear freeze and to restore seals
on spent fuel rods.
Should North Korea refuse to change its attitude despite the
resolution, the IAEA is expected to refer the matter to the UN
Security Council.
*****************************************************************
11 Japanese PM Criticizes North's Nuclear Gamble
Digital Chosunilbo (English Edition) : Daily News in English
Updated Dec.26,2002 17:09 KST
by Kwon Dae-yeol (dykwon@chosun.com)
TOKYO - Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said Thursday
North Korea's moves to reactivate a nuclear reactor could be
interpreted as provocation, and Pyongyang should not
underestimate the international community. Prime Minister Koizumi
added that many channels should be used to express the opposition
of international society.
However, Yasuo Fukuda, a Japanese cabinet minister and government
spokesman also said his government did not think North Korea was
actually activating its nuclear plant at the moment. The Japanese
media, including the Yomiuri Shimbun and Kyoto News Agency,
reported the prime minister "had strongly criticized North
Korea."
*****************************************************************
12 China Calls for Dialogue on Nuclear Issue
Digital Chosunilbo (English Edition) : Daily News in English
Updated Dec.26,2002 17:17 KST
by Yeo Shi-dong (sdyeo@chosun.com)
BEIJING - China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told
reporters at a press conference Wednesday that Beijing wishes to
solve the immediate problems of the North Korea nuclear crisis
through talks and peaceful measures based on the 1994 Geneva
Agreed framework between the United States and the North.
Liu was responding to a question regarding China's position on
the possibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency handing
over the nuclear issue to the United Nations Security Council.
Liu also expressed opposition to North Korea¡¯s development of
nuclear weapons, saying China "coherently supports
denuclearization of the Korean peninsula" and advocates
maintaining peace and security through talks.
*****************************************************************
13 Moscow Urges Caution on NK Situation
Digital Chosunilbo (English Edition) : Daily News in English
Updated Dec.26,2002 17:27 KST
by Jeong Byeong-seon (bschung@chosun.com)
Russian Vice-Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov said Wednesday,
Russia was worried by the fact that North Korea¡¯s nuclear
program was casting a negative influence on the Korean Peninsula.
North Korea is known to have opened its spent fuel rod store and
to have removed the seals from its nuclear facilities. The
Russian vice-minister also said that Pyongyang should cooperate
with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in solving the
current crisis.
Vice-Minister Losyukov said international society should also
think about why North Korea took such actions, and what the
solutions should be. He said the IAEA should also analyze the
situation surrounding the Yongbyon nuclear facility to figure out
how this situation came about.
He continued the IAEA's summoning a meeting to make up proposals
without specific analysis was inappropriate. "Sanctions on North
Korea are extreme measures to be made according to international
customs," he said.
*****************************************************************
14
Call Saddam's bluff --
The Washington Times
December 26, 2002
Jack Kemp
Secretary of State Colin L Powell said last week that Iraq's
declaration on weapons of mass destruction to the United Nations
contains "material omissions that, in our view, constitute
another material breach." The secretary also said that the United
States is "doing everything we can to avoid war," and he
reassured U.N. inspectors that the United States is prepared to
begin sharing intelligence about secret sites and activities that
Baghdad has not disclosed.
Then on Sunday, Saddam Hussein invited the United States to
send CIA agents into Iraq to designate sites where they believe
Iraq continues to hide WMD, saying he would allow our
intelligence agents to accompany the inspectors and give them
immediate and unrestricted access to any site in the country. We
should call Saddam's bluff.
I agree with Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican, who
said on "Face the Nation" on Sunday that a persuasive case has
not yet been made to go to war with Iraq. As the senator
observed, "This is not just about Iraq. It is about the entire
world."
Invading Iraq will have reverberations around the globe,
and we should not go to war based upon the reports of Iraqi
defectors or other indirect evidence. I believe by sending our
intelligence agents into Iraq, we have an opportunity to call
Saddam's bluff and see firsthand whether or not our suspicions
are true.
Meanwhile, North Korea has reactivated its
weapons-grade-plutonium-producing nuclear reactor, which it
promised former President Clinton it would deactivate in exchange
for the United States' giving it two "plutonium-free" nuclear
power plants. Moreover, North Korea has abrogated its obligations
under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by throwing out the
International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and has announced
that it is withdrawing from the NPT altogether.
In Pakistan, Islamic radicalism is coming to power
democratically one province at a time through local elections,
while officials of the national government and elected members of
the national parliament openly incite violence against the United
States and give aid and sanctuary to international terrorists.
According to Washington Times journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave,
"All the extremists detained following Gen. [Pervez] Musharraf's
pledge to the United States last January to quench terrorism are
now free men in a country where a Kalashnikov (AK-47) can be
rented for $2.50 a day and any kind of a weapon obtained at one
hour's notice."
Money from Saudi Arabia continues to finance a worldwide
network of madrassas — fundamentalist Islamic schools (11,000 in
Pakistan alone) — where boys are indoctrinated from the age of 4
into a brand of religious intolerance and violence that infects
not only Muslim countries but also the United States and the rest
of the Free World. These madrassas serve as a kind of terrorist
petri dish, incubating a jihadist virus that threatens our
democracy with attack from within long before Saddam could ever
hope to reach the United States with any kind of WMD.
Although Americans trust their government more today than
they have in many, many years, there is, nevertheless, a growing
awareness that the potential future threat posed by an isolated
Iraq has been exaggerated while the real, immediate threat
emanating from the North Korean-Pakistani-Iranian-Saudi axis has
been downplayed and underestimated.
As President Bush has kept our guns loaded and pointed at
Baghdad, we are perfectly situated to implement a containment
strategy that can work. If we call Saddam's bluff and send in our
intelligence agents to thoroughly search Iraq for WMD, Saddam
won't be able to make any more progress on a clandestine weapons
program, even if Iraq had begun to reconstitute its weapons of
mass destruction after the inspectors were withdrawn in 1998.
Now is the time to retrace our steps back to June 24, when
Mr. Bush laid down a new framework for peace between Israel and
the Arab world. Peace in the Middle East and democratic reforms
in the Palestinian Authority, coupled with the promise of a
21st-century Marshall plan for the region, could be a toehold for
helping to defuse the radical Islamic threat to world peace.
It is becoming more apparent every day that any search for
peace on Earth, good will toward men in the 21st century must
begin in the same land where the Prince of Peace was born 2000
years ago — that narrow strip of land between the Jordan River
and the Mediterranean Sea.
Jack Kemp is co-director of Empower America.
*****************************************************************
15
Pyongyang's nuclear party --
The Washington Times
EDITORIAL • December 26, 2002
In a Dec. 12 letter to the Vienna-based International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), Pyongyang announced its intention to
restart the country's nuclear program. "Accordingly, the IAEA is
requested to take necessary measures to remove the seals and
monitoring cameras on all of our nuclear facilities," Pyongyang
wrote.
North Korea has a flare for the dramatic, and on Saturday it
took decisive steps to make good on this threat. IAEA monitors
were summoned to the five-megawatt nuclear reactor in Yongbyon to
find a dismantling party underway. As monitoring cameras were
disabled, taped over or turned away from their subjects, and
doors that sealed the reactor were opened, Bush administration
officials say the North Koreans celebrated by singing, dancing
and even drinking. On Sunday, the party continued. The North
began unsealing the sensitive site that contains 8,000
spent-plutonium rods and later, the nuclear processing center
itself.
It doesn't take a nuclear scientist to see that all this is
a recipe for disaster. If North Korea takes the next step to
reprocess the spent-plutonium rods, Pyongyang will have enough
fissile material for as many as five nuclear warheads. But, if
there is a bright side, it is that last weekend's actions are
consistent with the usual snafu that constitutes North Korean
foreign policy. Tantrums are periodically thrown to rattle the
international community just enough to remind it that Pyongyang
wants new goodies.
In the last administration, this kind of behavior would have
resulted in near-instantaneous appeasement: simpering diplomats
with renewed pleas for restraint, and gifts of food, oil and
money. But this week, the State Department responded soberly. The
Bush administration "will not enter into dialogue in response to
threats or broken commitments, and we will not bargain or offer
inducements for North Korea to live up to the treaties and
agreements it has signed," a State Department spokesman said.
The Bush administration has been careful not to describe the
North's actions as a "crisis," although Pyongyang's actions are
clearly intended to create a crisis, and that's not sitting well
among some lawmakers. But some prominent lawmakers have chosen to
leap to a crisis mentality. "This is a greater danger immediately
to U.S. interests at this very moment, in my view, than Saddam
Hussein is," said Sen. Joseph Biden, Delaware Democrat, on
Sunday.
For a ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr.
Biden's remark is surprisingly careless. Other than in its
deplorability, in no respect are the North Korean and Iraqi
situations similar. We suspect that Mr. Biden knows this, and
that, like other liberal Democrats, his urgency with respect to
North Korea is, at least in part, an excuse to go soft on Iraq.
As James Lilley, a former ambassador to China, said, "This is
American domestic politics. The situations are difficult; they're
different. They each have to be handled in a different way."
For starters, given the lack of clear regional powers, the
United States can assert itself in the Mideast in a way it cannot
in the Far East. Then, too, Iraq has a stronger history of real
aggression. Despite constant saber rattling from Pyongyang and a
1998 missile test that sent a Taiepodong screaming over Japan's
main island, the North hasn't waged a military campaign since the
war that cleaved the islands in two 50 years ago. And should it
come to that point, the North has the immediate capability to
rain down tens of thousands of warheads on neighboring Japan and
South Korea — a capability Iraq does not have. Lastly, by dint of
its wholly dilapidated economy, North Korea is more susceptible
to diplomatic leverage than the relatively independent Iraq.
So what is the U.S. strategy for dealing with North Korea?
To stall. The IAEA plans to hold an emergency session in early
January to assess whether Pyongyang has broken its international
commitments, and, if it is found in violation, the matter would
likely be referred to the U.N. Security Council. Still, for that
body to act, it would require a permanent council member to
champion the cause.
The United States expects further escalatory steps by North
Korea and would rather push the issue when the case against
Pyongyang is beyond refutation. "Every step North Korea takes
that is consistently a bad step only bolsters the case [for
international action] later on," a Bush official said. China and
Russia, meanwhile, have been slow to react to Pyongyang's
shenanigans in the past, and it's doubtful they will push the
issue. But there are fears within the administration that this
approach might be sandbagged by France, another permanent
security council member. Paris has long tired of Pyongyang's
antics and frequently chides Washington for giving in to
Pyongyang's blackmail. The worry among U.S. officials is that the
Chirac administration will force the United Nations to act. And,
as with Mr. Biden and his fellow liberal lawmakers, there's an
element of politics involved: Getting tough on North Korea will
relieve some of the heat France has taken for its reluctance to
take on Iraq.
In truth, there's little substantively that the United
Nations can do to change North Korea. Full-out war is not a
likely scenario — even with Pyongyang's latest actions — and
embargoes and sanctions will have no effect on the decrepit North
Korean economy. As Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise
Institute said, the most effective method for putting the squeeze
on North Korea is through bilateral agreements to stanch the flow
of international aid.
That prospect is promising. Japanese sentiment is with the
United States. Despite some incautious remarks by Russia's deputy
foreign minister, working relations between Washington and Moscow
also bode well. China is a reluctant aid donor generally, and
even if it cannot be relied on to halt its subsidies to
Pyongyang, Beijing is unlikely to backfill the loss of aid
elsewhere. Even in South Korea, where last week saw the election
of Pyongyang soft-liner Roh Moo-hyun as president, the question
of continued subsidies is not a straightforward one. The hawkish
Grand National Party still controls the South Korean legislature,
and the North's recent actions will only bolster their opposition
to continued aid.
Faced with the choice of behaving or further economic
disintegration, Pyongyang may choose — if we are lucky — the
former. But the next few months are critical. If the North
continues with its plans to build nuclear weapons, it won't just
be the United States that will have something to say. A nuclear
North would likely result in a nuclear Japan and South Korea, and
that's something the regional powers of Russia and China would
prefer not to have. Indeed, it would likely prompt a party
Pyongyang would rather not host.
*****************************************************************
16 Niger denies selling uranium to Iraq
BBC NEWS | Africa |
Thursday, 26 December, 2002, 14:38 GMT
[Nomads in the Niger desert ]
Uranium is Niger's main export
The prime minister of Niger, Hama Hamadou, has admitted that Iraq
tried to buy uranium from it in the 1980s, but he said the offer
had been rejected.
The US State Department last week accused Baghdad of seeking to
procure uranium from Niger for the creation of nuclear weapons,
and omitting this from its arms declaration to the United
Nations.
The BBC's Souleymane Habouba in Niamey says that Mr Hamadou's
denial surprised many in Niger who believe their impoverished
country would not have missed the chance to improve its finances
through uranium sales.
Niger, one of the world's poorest nations, is the third largest
producer of uranium, along with Russia.
'Bilateral cooperation'
Mr Hamadou issued the denial during a live debate on national
radio and television.
"In the 1980s, when Iraq was not a country banished by the great
powers, it tried to buy uranium in the framework of bilateral
cooperation," he said.
Mr Hamadou said that the then President Seyni Kountche turned
down Iraq's request.
He said that his government, which has been in place since
January 2000, had never been approached by Iraq for uranium.
"Iraq has never bought uranium from Niger, and the Niger
Government has never discussed selling uranium to Iraq," he said.
[Niger President Mamadou Tandja ]
Niger says it cannot produce enriched uranium
He said that Niger had always respected international
conventions on the proliferation of nuclear material.
"Niger cannot sell its uranium to whoever it likes: it has
neither the technological means, nor the military capability, nor
the ability to do so," he said.
Three countries in Africa are officially listed by the World
Nuclear Association as uranium producing countries.
They are Niger, Namibia and South Africa.
Niger produces 2,900 tons of uranium per year, which it sells
mainly to France, Japan and Spain.
Three months ago, the South African Government said
categorically it had not been approached to sell uranium to Iraq.
Britain's dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which
was released in September, says that Saddam Hussein tried to get
"significant quantities of uranium from Africa". [
© MMII | News Sources
*****************************************************************
17 There's no proof: Moscow
NEWS.com.au |
(December 27, 2002)
RUSSIA has widened the rift on the UN Security Council over Iraq
by openly disputing Washington's claim it has proof Baghdad is
hiding weapons of mass destruction.
A correspondent in Moscow "No one can provide the slightest
evidence," Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Yury Fedotov told the
ITAR-TASS news agency, dismissing claims that Iraq represented a
terrorist threat.
The US and its closest ally, Britain, claim they have proof of
Iraqi attempts to foil weapons inspections, a claim Baghdad
strongly denies.
Russia, the US and Britain, along with France and China, are the
five permanent security council members, each with veto power
over actions and resolutions by the 15-member council.
The US has threatened unilateral military action against Iraq if
it believes Baghdad is in "material breach" of UN Security
Council Resolution 1441 mandating its abolition of weapons of
mass destruction.
Washington and London have already said a material breach exists,
based on Iraq's 12,000-page account of its weapons program
mandated and received by the Security Council.
Syria, the only Arab member of the Security Council, dismissed as
"ridiculous and unfounded" accusations by Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon that Iraq had transferred weapons of mass
destruction to Syria.
Mr Sharon claimed on Tuesday that UN inspectors in Iraq would be
unlikely to find any weapons because they were being hidden in
Syria.
"Sharon's allegations are unfounded and only aim to divert
attention from the chemical, nuclear and biological arsenal that
Israel possesses," a foreign ministry spokesman said in Damascus.
"The accusations are ridiculous, especially since Syria has
signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and along with other
Arab countries has called for the Middle East to be freed from
all weapons of mass destruction," the Syrian spokesman told the
official SANA news agency.
"The only party that has opposed this call and continues to do so
is Israel."
Israel agreed with the US in 1969 not to declare its nuclear
weapons programs nor to test its nuclear weapons.
In return, Washington pledged not to pressure Israel to sign the
nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
However, military experts say Israel has at least 200 nuclear
warheads and possesses the means to use them in an attack.
The Australian
*****************************************************************
18 N Korea nuclear moves alarm UN
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific |
Thursday, 26 December, 2002,
[North Korean border guard]
Tensions between the two Koreas are rising
The UN nuclear watchdog says North Korea has moved 1,000 nuclear
fuel rods to a reactor that could produce weapons-grade plutonium
- a situation it describes as "very worrying".
I don't think it would be the right thing for us to continue to
build up our diplomatic relations with North Korea
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
Mohamed ElBaradei, said the Yongbyon plant could "be directly
used to manufacture nuclear weapons - and there again we have no
way to verify the nature of the activity".
There is mounting international concern that the Yongbyon
reactor, sealed up for eight years under a deal with the US,
could be restarted - the IAEA says it could be working within two
months.
In protest at Pyongyang's nuclear moves, Australia has halted
plans to open an embassy in North Korea, saying it would not be
appropriate to build up diplomatic relations now. Washington said
that moves to restart the facilities "would compound North
Korea's violations of its international commitments".
"We call on North Korea to immediately allow the International
Atomic Energy Agency to replace or restore the seals and cameras
that the North has damaged" at the Yongbyon reactor, US State
Department spokeswoman Barbara Greenberg said on Thursday.
CRISIS CHRONOLOGY
[Satellite photo of Yongbyon plant in 2000 by Space Imaging ]
16 Oct: N Korea acknowledges secret nuclear
programme, US announces
14 Nov: Fuel shipments to N Korea halted
27 November: N Korea accuses US of fabricating claim about
nuclear programme
12 Dec: N Korea threatens to reactivate Yongbyon N-plant
22 Dec: N Korea removes monitoring devices at Yongbyon
reactor
26 Dec: UN says 1,000 fuel rods had been moved to the plant
Detailed timeline of growing tensions
Earlier, South Korea said more diplomatic efforts were
needed to avert a crisis over North Korea's nuclear programme.
President Kim Dae-jung told his National Security Council
that Seoul must work with the US and Japan to stop the situation
deteriorating.
Russia has also renewed its calls on North Korea to
co-operate with IAEA inspectors who were brought in to ensure it
did not conceal weapons-grade plutonium when the reactors were
mothballed.
Earlier this month Pyongyang said it was re-activating its
nuclear programme and dismantled the IAEA's monitoring equipment
at Yongbyon.
North Korea says the Yongbyon reactor will help meet its
electricity needs.
The reactor was closed down as part of an American-led fuel aid
deal which broke down this year when the US suspended shipments
in protest at moves by the North to revive its nuclear programme.
[An official of the International Atomic Energy Agency holds a
surveillance camera]
The IAEA's cameras had been in place since 1994
The IAEA spokesman, Mark Gwozdecky, said the agency was
particularly concerned about the reprocessing plant at the site,
which North Korea could use to obtain weapons-grade plutonium
from spent fuel.
"We're concerned about the reactor but ultimately it is the
reprocessing facility that is of the highest concern to us," he
said.
He added that there was no sign of the North Koreans trying to
re-start the reprocessing plant.
Mr Gwozdecky said that although the North Koreans had disabled
surveillance equipment there, two IAEA inspectors on the ground
were still monitoring the situation.
NORTH KOREA NUCLEAR PROGRAMME Yongbyon: Five-megawatt
experimental nuclear power reactor and a partially completed
plutonium extraction facility. Activities at site frozen under
1994 Agreed Framework
Taechon: 200-MWt nuclear power reactor - construction halted
under Agreed Framework
Pyongyang: Laboratory-scale "hot cells" that may have been used
to extract small quantities of plutonium
Kumho: Two 1,000-MWt light water reactors being built under
Agreed Framework
© MMII | News Sources | Privacy
*****************************************************************
19 Russia's, Iran's Atomic Energy Ministers Find Cooperation Very
Productive
| RosbaltNews.COM
Rosbalt, 25/12/2002, 16:12
TEHERAN, December 25. Iran and Russia have conducted talks
concerning cooperation in nuclear industry. The Vice-President
and Head of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran (AEOI),
Gholamreza Aghazadeh positively evaluates the outcome of the
first round of his talks with Russia's Minister of Nuclear
Energy, Aleksander Rumyantsev. During their December 23 meeting,
they mostly concentrated on the construction and further
development of the Bushir nuclear power plant. "After the Russian
Minister visits the Bushir power plant, we will continue our
dialogue concerning the situation around the work done by Russian
professionals", Mr. Aghazadeh said.
Russia's Minister of Nuclear Energy, Aleksander Rumyantsev also
finds the first round of talks effective. "The Iranian party is
concerned about the soonest possible launching of the power plant
and, according to our earlier agreements, we confirmed the
similarity of our intentions. The power plant is supposed to be
put into commercial operation in 2004", Mr. Rumyantsev said.
The supplies of nuclear fuel for the "Bushir" nuclear power plant
depend on how the intergovernmental agreement between Russia and
Iran is followed, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, on
Iran's preparedness to return spent nuclear fuel to Russia. 'We
have agreed to prepare the necessary documents in order to
resolve the currently standing issue of spent nuclear fuel', he
added.
Other issues, such as further cooperation in energy production
between the two countries were also discussed.
¿ RIA Novosti
© 2000-2002 Rosbalt News Agency Technical support
mailer@rosbalt.ru © 2000-2002 Rosbalt
*****************************************************************
20 Kim Dae-Jung wants leading role for Seoul in nuclear talks
Channelnewsasia.com
26 December 2002 1619 hrs (SST) 0819 hrs (GMT)
South Korea says it wants to play a leading role in resolving
North Korea's nuclear crisis.
In a special security meeting, outgoing President Kim Dae-Jung
(picture) says the government should seek dialogue with the North
through "existing channels".
At the same time, Mr Kim said, they should also work with the US
and Japan, to defuse the escalating tension.
He feels self-determination should spearhead efforts to prevent
the standoff from growing into a crisis for the Korean peninsula.
"We have to consult with our allies in a way of thinking that we
ourselves determine our own fate," President Kim said.
These developments come after North Korea reportedly started
moving fuel rods into a previously frozen nuclear reactor,
deepening concerns that it is restarting facilities that could
produce nuclear weapons.
In a discussion with security and foreign policy ministers, Mr
Kim said the North's nuclear issue is a critical problem for the
Korean Peninsula.
And so South Korea must play a leading role in solving the
matter.
He did not spell out what measures would be taken.
Time appears to be running out.
Pyongyang has again raised the stakes in the nuclear crisis - it
has begun moving new fuel rods into a reactor, after disabling UN
monitoring devices there.
It is feared that the reactor will start to separate plutonium
from the spent fuel.
US officials claim the rods hold enough weapons-grade plutonium
to make several nuclear bombs.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear
watchdog agency, says it is keeping an eye on the situation.
A spokesman for Mr Kim says the president reaffirmed that he
opposes a nuclear-armed North Korea but wants to settle the fresh
nuclear crisis in a peaceful way.
"Through the IAEA, we have confirmed that North Korea seems to be
preparing to reactivate 5 megawatt reactor. IAEA and us are
keeping our eyes on whether further actions by North Korea will
reach the red line," said Yim Sung-joon, South Korean
Presidential National Security Adviser.
"But our government won't jump to conclusion. Even though we are
in the middle of high tension, our government will take
thoughtful measures to resolve this issue. I think the United
States will take this issue as the same as we do," he added.
North Korea maintains that its restarting its nuclear facilities
in order to generate electricity.
Pyongyang says it has no choice but to do that, after the US
reneged on a deal to provide it with energy sources, in return
for freezing its nuclear weapons programme.
The IAEA is said to be planning a meeting next month, to engage
Pyongyang in talks.
The alternative is to bring up the matter to the UN Security
Council.
Copyright © 2002 MediaCorp News Pte Ltd
*****************************************************************
21 DoD Official Frames Upcoming Budget Strategies
DefenseLINK News:
Updated: 26 Dec 2002
[American Forces Press Service]
Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample, USA
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 26, 2002 -- DoD's wish list for fiscal 2004 is
only a couple of months from delivery. A senior defense
department official recently previewed the department's strategy
for the '04 budget: a focus on readiness and modernization --
investing in newer technologies, while divesting Cold-War era
weapons systems.
The Office of Management and Budget probably was "within days" of
finishing its "chop" on the upcoming budget, the official
revealed at a Dec. 19 Pentagon briefing under a condition of
anonymity.
"The emphasis between things like investment in remodeling
existing equipment or trying to decrease the level of investment
in existing equipment to put into new equipment – those are
things which we have been driving through the strategy that we
have adopted," he said.
"Although Congress has yet to put the check in mail to fund the
Pentagon's new investment strategy, the services have taken the
transformation upon themselves, diverting some of current year's
funding to pay for readiness and future modernizations."
The official added that the each of the services had moved a
"significant fraction" of their investment resources over the
future years defense program, to include in fiscal 2004, from
older and existing programs into newer programs.
"This is a lot of money that they are taking from what we have
been doing and trying to begin to make the investments against
where we think we want to go," he said. "That is work that was
driven by the services as they went through their own budget bill
process during the course of the year.
"It means that tanks and armored personnel vehicles won't be
upgraded at the rate that they might have been. It means that
ships will be retired. It means that aircraft will be retired,"
the official pointed out, "some before really it's necessary to
do so, but as a way of freeing up those resources to invest in
other capabilities."
He listed several program shifts that the services are – or will
be – working on, among them:
Conversion of four Trident Submarines from carrying strategic
ballistic missiles to cruise missiles: "That began in (fiscal)
'03 and will continue through '06," he noted.
Confirmation that the Navy would start building the CVN-21
aircraft carrier (formerly the CVNX-class) in 2007. This
next-generation carrier would contain about 80 percent of
capabilities that had been planned for the second CVNX in 2011,
to include up to an 800-person crew reduction, a new nuclear
power plant boosting three times the current electrical output
and a new flight-deck arrangement.
More competition among airframes for conducting air warfare. The
official mentioned current programs with the Navy's F-18
fighter/attack aircraft, the Air Force's F-22 fighter and the
multi- service Joint Strike Fighter and unmanned combat aerial
vehicles.
Examining how the Army and Marine Corps are organized and
equipped and what their relationship with the naval and air
forces is in shaping future warfare.
In the end, DoD wants to be certain that there's a force that,
"once the president decides it needs to be engaged, can move
swiftly to that engagement, and once engaged, bring the conflict
to a quick conclusion," the official said. If DoD can do this, "I
think we will have succeeded in that transforming process that
the secretary has been talking very much about."
DefenseLINK
*****************************************************************
22 A clear and present danger to the north -
smh.com.au
December 27 2002
John Howard must focus more on the threat posed by the Pyongyang
regime, writes Mark Riley.
A little over a month ago, John Howard stood before a group of
Australia's most influential business leaders at Sydney's Four
Seasons Hotel and delivered what his office had promised would be
a "landmark" speech laying out his Government's third-term policy
agenda.
Like so many speeches that come with such lofty expectations, it
traversed a fair amount of land but left no great mark.
There were a couple of low-grade announcements in minor policy
areas and some tarting up of old commitments, but there was
nothing on the kind of topics expected from a statement of broad
policy direction - nothing on health, nothing on tax and nothing
on employment.
The only real impact came from Howard's promise to the assembled
members of the Committee for Economic Development of Australia,
or CEDA, that our SAS boys and girls would be home from
Afghanistan for Christmas.
The news came as an immense relief to the families of the
soldiers, and dominated the headlines the next day. But it
overshadowed another element of the speech on a topic that has
suddenly gained an intense level of political sensitivity -
Australia's relationship with North Korea. ");document.write("
advertisement
"); } } // -->
Howard called his speech "Strategic Leadership for Australia -
Policy Directions in a Complex World." The world has become
increasingly more complex in the weeks since, and nowhere has
that been more evident than on the Korean peninsula.
The escalating war of words between Pyongyang and Washington over
North Korea's nuclear weapons program has emerged swiftly and
frighteningly to present the clearest and most immediate threat
to the security of our region. The great challenge for Howard is
how he deals with this politically and diplomatically at a time
when he is skewing our primary foreign policy focus to the
looming conflict in Iraq.
In his speech to the CEDA gathering, Howard acknowledged the
deepening question of why his Government is so preoccupied with
Iraq when a state like North Korea, which is equally considered
"unstable", "rogue" or "part of the axis of evil", depending upon
the pejorative du jour, possesses weapons of mass destruction and
an ability to deliver them onto our shores.
"The crucial difference is that Iraq has form," Howard said.
"Iraq has used weapons of mass destruction, not only against a
section of her own population but also against Iranian forces
during the Iraq-Iran war."
He said Iraq had also been "aggressive towards her neighbours, as
evidenced by her invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and missile attacks
on Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain". On top of that, Baghdad had
a long history of supporting terrorist groups in the Middle East
and elsewhere.
No one should doubt the threat Saddam Hussein could pose to his
region if he were to again develop the capacity to deliver
weapons of mass destruction. Nor should there be any compromise
in the international community's insistence that he comply with
UN Security Council resolutions and immediately rid himself of
any such capacity.
But we should have a close look at Howard's suggestion that the
fundamental difference between Iraq and North Korea is form.
It clearly is not.
Kevin Rudd, the Opposition's spokesman on foreign affairs,
suggests Howard should take a little trip down memory lane if he
seriously thinks North Korea's form is good. What that trip would
reveal is a nation that is just as threatening and callous and
bloodthirsty as Saddam's Iraq.
The march of the North Korean army across the 38th parallel in
1950 resulted in one of the bloodiest wars our region has ever
witnessed. South Korea lost 415,000 lives. The combined toll of
North Korean and Chinese dead was probably twice that.
Pyongyang is also blamed for the worst single act of
state-sponsored terrorism in East Asia - the assassination of
half the members of the South Korean cabinet in a Rangoon bomb
blast in 1983. Then there are the three live missile firings
across Japanese territorial waters and the calculated and
premeditated spate of naval incidents in South Korean waters in
recent times.
None of these would appear to be the actions of a particularly
welcoming or benign neighbour.
Either Howard had a lapse of memory that night or he was guilty
of a gross political sin of omission. The real fundamental
difference between North Korea and Iraq from the Australian
perspective is the character of the relationship we are
developing with Pyongyang.
Australia is a leading provider of humanitarian aid to North
Korea. We have contributed more than $30 million in food and
medicines since 1995 through the World Food Program and the World
Health Organisation.
We are also one of only five Western countries that have any
formalised diplomatic relations with the Stalinist nation. There
is no written bilateral deal, but Australia and North Korea
agreed in May 2000 to a normalisation of relations, which has
progressed slowly and carefully.
Whether we like it or not, the North Koreans view Australia as a
diplomatic proxy for the US. When our diplomats speak to
Pyongyang, the North Koreans hear Washington talking.
To that end, there is a very good argument for keeping open the
lines of communication with North Korea. The decision to shelve
plans to open an Australian embassy there is a good one, but we
must keep talking to the Pyongyang regime through our formal
contacts with its embassy in Canberra and through the back
channel we have established between our respective UN missions in
New York.
But we should never underestimate the level of threat the country
poses to our strategic interests, either by elliptical comparison
to Iraq or in any other way. Both are threatening regimes but
only one, North Korea, has a proven nuclear capability. And only
North Korea has the medium- and long-range missile programs to
potentially deliver weapons of mass destruction to our shores and
leave the kind of mark in our land that no speech could repair.
Mark Riley is the Herald's federal political correspondent.
Copyright © 2002. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
23 Global Nuke Threat Grows
The Salt Lake Tribune --
December 25, 2002
BY JOBY WARRICK
THE WASHINGTON POST
The recent disclosures of secret nuclear facilities in Iran
and North Korea -- combined with the latter's threat this week
to resume plutonium production -- have presented the United
States its most serious nuclear challenge since the early 1990s.
The episodes have not only forced a reassessment of when the two
countries could become nuclear powers, but also exposed widening
gaps in the international fire walls built decades ago to halt
the spread of nuclear materials and technology, weapons experts
say.
U.S. officials had long suspected Iran and North Korea of
quietly seeking nuclear arms. But what was most startling about
the revelations of the past few weeks is how much the two
countries managed to achieve before anyone noticed, the experts
said.
Iran's secret nuclear program was disguised for two years as
a water-irrigation project in the country's northern desert. Two
weeks ago, satellite photos revealed construction near the town
of Natanz that U.S. officials say is designed not for pumping
water, but for enriching uranium.
North Korea agreed in a 1994 pact with the Clinton
administration to stop pursuit of a plutonium bomb. But then it
created a hidden uranium program and disguised it so well that
intelligence officials still are not sure of its location.
Accounts by defectors in a recent congressional report point to
at least one underground factory in tunnels in Mount Chonma, on
the Chinese border. Production of enriched uranium, which would
be necessary to make a weapon, appears to be under way,
according to the defectors cited by the Congressional Research
Service.
The disclosures have spawned new worries that other
countries will be drawn into an accelerating arms race, just as
the Bush administration prepares for a possible conflict with
Iraq. The United States has accused Iraq of trying to develop
weapons of mass destruction, which Iraq has denied. While the
scope of any Iraqi nuclear program is still not known, if it
exists, U.S. officials acknowledge that it is probably far less
advanced than those in Iran or North Korea.
"For everyone who hoped that nuclear weapons were somehow
receding from international politics, we're now seeing them come
back again, in part because of our own failed policies," said
Graham Allison, director of Harvard University's Belfer Center
for Science and International Affairs. "If North Korea becomes a
nuclear state, you can predict that in short order South Korea
and Japan may become nuclear states also. After that, you've got
a devil's brew."
Even before the recent disclosures, many weapons experts
were alarmed by nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in
May 1998. The experts have also expressed concern about recent
U.S. willingness to consider new uses for nuclear bombs, such as
the destruction of heavily fortified bunkers.
"The nuclear issue is back again in a way it hasn't been
around since the 1950s," said Andrei Kokoshin, a Russian
legislator and an adviser to former president Boris Yeltsin on
military and security issues. "There is a great probability that
arsenals will grow and new countries will acquire weapons. And
we are simply not prepared for it."
In the 1960s, President Kennedy's advisers predicted a world
perpetually on the brink, as nuclear weapons and know-how spread
to dozens of nations. But in the decades since, membership in
the nuclear club has been constrained, thanks to a combination
of international monitoring, superpower pressure and strict
controls on the export of sensitive technology and material.
Today, in addition to the original five nuclear powers --
the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China -- only
India and Pakistan have declared arsenals of nuclear weapons.
Israel is widely assumed to have the bomb, and North Korea is
believed to have one or two nuclear devices, according to CIA
analysts. South Africa built a bomb in the 1960s, but later
renounced its nuclear program.
Other nations have sought nuclear weapons, including Iran,
Iraq and North Korea. But the technical difficulties inherent in
creating fissile material -- plutonium or enriched uranium --
combined with restrictions on nuclear-related exports, helped
put the bomb out of their reach. Although clandestine
development of nuclear weapons was possible, as Iraq
demonstrated in the early 1990s with its crash program to build
a bomb, Western intelligence agencies were proficient at
spotting the distinctive nuclear reactors and large reprocessing
facilities required for making plutonium-based weapons.
Strikingly, both North Korea and Iran managed to fool
Western spy satellites by apparently choosing uranium as their
fissile material. European technology for enriching uranium for
bombs has spread globally in recent years. The technology
requires less production space and thus is easier to conceal,
weapons experts and intelligence officials say.
"With plutonium, you have big production reactors and lots
of signs and signals that give you away," said Rose
Gottemoeller, formerly deputy undersecretary for defense nuclear
nonproliferation in the Department of Energy and now a senior
associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "It
is possible to build a uranium plant without giving off any
signals to the outside world."
U.S. intelligence officials believe North Korea obtained
uranium-enrichment technology and equipment from Pakistan in
exchange for missiles. North Korea is believed to have begun
secretly building a uranium enrichment plant in the late 1990s
using hundreds of fast-spinning devices known as gas
centrifuges. Pakistan has denied aiding North Korea's nuclear
efforts.
In late September, the North Koreans acknowledged the
existence of a secret uranium program after Assistant Secretary
of States James Kelly confronted them with evidence during a
meeting in Pyong- yang. Tensions have risen in recent weeks,
culminating in North Korea's decision to rescind its agreement
not to develop nuclear bombs.
If North Korea begins full production of nuclear weapons, it
could develop up to five plutonium bombs from its existing
stocks of reactor fuel and could begin production of
uranium-based weapons as early as 2004, according to a recent
analysis by the Washington-based Nonproliferation Policy
Education Center.
Iran's suppliers are less well-known, although U.S.
intelligence officials suspect the Tehran government received
help from Russian and Ukrainian companies, and possibly from
China. The evidence of Iran's program came in the form of
commercial satellite photos depicting two suspicious
construction projects. One of them -- the "desert eradication "
project near the town of Natanz -- has all the markings of a
uranium enrichment plant, including 8-foot concrete outer walls
to protect the facility against an attack, said David Albright,
a former nuclear inspector for the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the U.N.-chartered agency that monitors nuclear
facilities in scores of nations.
Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
24 Sweden clears reactor for controversial fuel
12-26-02
Planet Ark :
Environmental activists condemned the decision
and vowed to protest.
"This is truly a shameful decision," Dima Litvinov, head of the
anti-nuclear campaign of the environmental group Greenpeace in
Sweden, told Reuters.
After a four-year political struggle, the Swedish government
decided it would give the Oskarshamn nuclear power plant limited
permission to use MOX - mixed uranium and plutonium oxide fuel.
About 850 kilos (1,870 pounds) o f plutonium in the MOX fuel was
used by the Oskarshamn plant between 1975 and 1982 and then
reprocessed in Britain.
The government said by allowing Oskarshamn to import the
reprocessed fuel, Sweden was taking responsibility for handling
atomic waste that it had generated.
But Greenpeace, which with other groups recently hampered
shipping of MOX from Japan to England, said it was extremely
dangerous to transport the material to Sweden.
Some critics fear the potentially weapons-grade MO X could be
seized on the high seas by terrorists.
"We don't usually reveal details of action, but certainly we will
not let this go on," Litvinov said. "I expect strong protests
from Greenpeace and also from others."
In September, anti-nuclear campaigners including Greenpeace
confronted two ships carrying MOX to Sellafield, a nuclear fuel
reprocessing plant in England, from Japan.
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
*****************************************************************
25 North Korea Moves Fuel Rods Into Reactor
Las Vegas SUN:
December 26, 2002 By PAUL SHIN ASSOCIATED PRESS
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -
South Korea's president said Thursday that his nation would never
tolerate North Korea's efforts to develop nuclear weapons, as the
communist nation began moving fresh fuel rods to a mothballed
nuclear reactor.
President Kim Dae-jung told a special Cabinet meeting, however,
that the standoff should be resolved through dialogue, despite
deepening concerns that North Korea will restart facilities that
experts say could produce nuclear weapons within months.
"We can never go along with North Korea's nuclear weapons
development," Kim said in remarks released to the press by his
spokeswoman, Park Sun-sook. "We must closely cooperate with the
United States, Japan and other friendly countries to prevent the
situation from further deteriorating into a crisis."
Kim, whose five-year term ends in February, was the architect of
a policy of engagement with North Korea that resulted in a
historic summit in 2000.
His successor, Roh Moo-hyun, has also advocated dialogue to ease
nuclear tensions since he was elected to the nation's top job
last week. Roh plans to exchange special envoys with the Bush
administration in January to discuss the nuclear standoff.
North Korea announced earlier this month that it planned to
restart its nuclear facilities to get badly needed electricity,
though U.S. officials have said that the power obtained from the
reactor would be negligible.
State media in Pyongyang, the North's capital, defended the
decision Thursday.
"The United States is going around trying to stir public opinion
internationally, as though this is a sign of developing nuclear
weapons," state-run Radio Pyongyang said in a commentary. "Our
measure has got nothing to do with plans to develop nuclear
weapons. Our republic constantly maintains an anti-nuclear,
peace-loving position," the commentary said. It was carried by
South Korea's Yonhap news agency.
In the past week, North Korea removed U.N. monitoring seals and
cameras from its nuclear facilities, ignoring warnings by the
United States and the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency. On
Wednesday, North Korea again defied international opinion by
moving fresh fuel rods from a storage house into a power plant
that houses a 5-megawatt nuclear reactor at its main nuclear
complex in Yongbyon, 50 miles north of its capital, Pyongyang,
said the Vienna-based IAEA.
Mark Gwozdecky, an IAEA spokesman, told the British Broadcasting
Corp. that IAEA inspectors in North Korea had reported that some
400 fuel rods were moved into the reactor building but had not
yet been loaded into the reactor for operation.
Gwozdecky estimated that it would take "at least a month and
maybe several months" for the reactor to restart running again.
The Soviet-designed reactor produces plutonium, the material used
to make atomic bombs, as a residue.
By bringing the rods into the reactor building, North Korea is
showing that its intention to reactivate the nuclear facilities
is not an "empty word," said Chun Young-woo, a nuclear
disarmament official in South Korea's Foreign Ministry.
Chun could not provide details on how the rods were being
transported, but said they are too heavy to be moved by hand.
They are about a yard long and 1.2 inches in diameter.
In a deal with the United States in 1994, North Korea froze its
plutonium-based nuclear program in exchange for foreign energy
supplies. Earlier this month, it decided to restart it after
Washington and its allies halted oil shipments as punishment for
revelations in October that North Korea had moved forward with a
second nuclear weapons program that used enriched uranium.
Gwozdecky said there were no signs of activities by North Korean
officials at two other key facilities that are of more serious
concern - a storage area holding 8,000 spent fuel rods and a
laboratory used to reprocess spent fuel rods to get plutonium.
U.S. and IAEA officials say that the 8,000 spent fuel rods hold
enough weapons-grade plutonium to make several nuclear bombs.
North Korea is suspected of already having at least one atomic
bomb.
"We are concerned about the reprocessing facility, which is where
they would extract plutonium from the spent fuel rods and make
plutonium, and of course so far there have been no signs of
activity at the reprocessing facility," Gwozdecky said.
North Korea says the dispute can be settled only if Washington
agrees to sign a nonaggression treaty. Recent weeks have seen a
sharp increase in anti-U.S. rhetoric warning that the situation
on the Korean Peninsula was "on the brink of war."
The United States, which is preparing for a possible war against
Iraq, is seeking a peaceful settlement to the issue but has ruled
out any talks before the communist state gives up its nuclear
ambitions.
All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
26 AU: Critics say study on nuclear plant attack is mere whitewash -
smh.com.au
December 27 2002
American nuclear power plants would survive a direct hit by a
fully fuelled passenger airliner piloted by suicide hijackers
bent on repeating the attacks of September 11, a study by an
energy industry research group says.
Critics of the nuclear industry said the study, released this
week by the Electric Power Research Institute, was skewed to draw
a conclusion proclaiming the safety of the US's 103 nuclear power
plants.
The danger exists that a direct strike could cause the meltdown
of a plant's nuclear core that would spread wind-borne radiation
to thousands of people, critics said.
"They knew the answers they wanted and worked backwards," said
Edwin Lyman, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, an
organisation critical of the industry's safety claims.
"We can't take anything the industry says at face value."
Nuclear industry officials insist the study was scientifically
sound, and was conducted by highly reputable engineering
consultants using real-life scenarios involving a terrorist
strike on a nuclear plant.
Only a 10-page summary of the study was released publicly, with
the rest withheld for security reasons.
"The results of this study validate the industry's confidence
that nuclear power plants are robust and protect the [nuclear]
fuel from impacts of a large commercial aircraft," said Joe
Colvin, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade
association of utilities and nuclear energy firms that asked the
research institute to conduct the report. "Public health and
safety would be protected" in such an attack, he said.
"Confidence is predicated on the fact that nuclear plant
structures have thick concrete walls with heavy reinforcing
steel, and are designed to withstand large earthquakes, extreme
overpressures and hurricane force winds," the report said.
The study considered what would happen if a Boeing 767 squarely
crashed into a power plant's nuclear containment building - the
structure where nuclear reactors are located - with a tank full
of fuel.
The assumption was that the aircraft was travelling at 560kmh,
the approximate speed of the jet that hit the Pentagon and the
velocity that the consultants believe a pilot would maintain to
manoeuvre a plane into a site built low to the ground.
However, Mr Lyman said it would be feasible for a highly trained
pilot to fly at up to 960kmh, about the speed of the first
aircraft to strike the World Trade Centre - a scenario that would
worsen the damage. Furthermore, the study apparently did not
consider the effect of two or more aircraft strikes on the same
plant.
The Washington Post
Copyright © 2002. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
27 Plant run by Nuclear Management is fined (12/26/02)*
December 26, 2002
*Xcel Energy's Prairie Island nuclear power plant in Red Wing,
Minn., operated by Hudson-based Nuclear Management Co., was fined
$60,000 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. *
*The commission said the plant withheld information from the
agency when the power plant sought a special waiver to run the
reactor without backup safety equipment. The NRC said that if the
full information had been disclosed, the agency would have
required extra precautions or had the plant shut down to make
repairs.*
A Nuclear Management Co. official said the company would not
contest the fine. Officials from both Xcel and NMC declined
comments on the decision.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said a former worker at the
Prairie Island plant removed a document from a stack of records
that were presented to NRC inspectors as part of an investigation
in May 2001. The NRC said, however, that no action would be taken
against the employee since he no longer works at Prairie Island.
The NRC determined that the problem at the plant was not from
willful misconduct, but rather, "stupidity," a ruling that did
not sit well with some environmental groups that charged that the
company may have willfully withheld information.
Nuclear Management Co. is located at 700 First St. in Hudson.
/©The Hudson Star-Observer 2002/
*****************************************************************
28 Analysis of Nuclear Power Plants Shows Aircraft Crash Would Not Breach
Structures Housing Reactor Fuel
Nuclear Energy Institute
*/WASHINGTON, D.C., Dec. 23, 2002/*?Structures that house reactor
fuel at U.S. nuclear power plants would protect against a release
of radiation even if struck by a large commercial jetliner,
according to analyses conducted over the past several months by
the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
The independent analyses were conducted at the request of the
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and paid for by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE).
State-of-the-art computer modeling techniques determined that
typical nuclear plant containment structures, used fuel storage
pools, fuel storage containers, and used fuel transportation
containers at U.S. nuclear power plants would withstand these
impact forces despite some concrete crushing and bent steel.
The computer analyses, which cost more than $1 million, are
summarized in a report entitled, ?Deterring Terrorism: Aircraft
Crash Impact Analyses Demonstrate Nuclear Power Plant?s
Structural Strength.? A summary of the study?s findings is
accessible on NEI?s web site at http://www.nei.org
.
?The results of this study validate the industry?s confidence
that nuclear power plants are robust and protect the fuel from
impacts of a large commercial aircraft,? said Joe F. Colvin,
NEI?s president and chief executive officer. ?Clearly an impact
of this magnitude would do great damage to a plant?s ability to
generate electricity. But the findings show, far more
importantly, that public health and safety would be protected.?
The study was performed for EPRI by ABS Consulting?s Irvine,
Calif., office and by San Diego-based ANATECH. It was peer
reviewed and critiqued as the computer modeling was being done by
internationally recognized experts with decades of experience in
structural analysis.
The analysis used several criteria that increased the severity of
the crash scenario. Most notable was the assumption that a large
aircraft traveling low to the ground at speeds similar to the
estimated speed of the jetliner that struck the Pentagon on Sept.
11, 2001, precisely executes a hit that transfers the full impact
of the crash to the structure being struck. Separate analyses
assumed direct hits by both the aircraft?s fuselage and a
9,500-pound engine. This size engine is typical of the majority
of aircraft currently in service; it would envelop engines on
767-400s, 757-300s, 747-400s, 737-800s, DC 10-30s, MD11s,
A320-200s, A330-200s and L1011-500s.
The analysis also increased severity by assuming that a Boeing
767-400 would strike at its maximum takeoff weight (450,000
pounds) even though fuel would be consumed both in takeoff and en
route to any power plant site.
The nuclear energy industry is confident in the robustness of
nuclear plant structures that house reactor fuel to withstand
aircraft impacts, even though they were not specifically designed
for such impacts.
?This confidence is predicated on the fact that nuclear plant
structures have thick concrete walls with heavy reinforcing steel
and are designed to withstand large earthquakes, extreme
overpressures and hurricane force winds,? the report states.
EPRI served as the technical lead on the study to test the bases
for industry confidence in power plant structural strength
against aircraft crash impacts. EPRI was founded in 1973 as a
non-profit energy research consortium. Its mission is to provide
science and technology-based solutions to global energy customers
through scientific research, technology development, and product
implementation.
The Boeing 767-400 was used for the analysis for several reasons.
For example, Boeing aircraft account for almost two-thirds of the
commercial aircraft registered in the United States. The Boeing
767 series is the most widely used ?wide body? aircraft in the
U.S. commercial fleet?with more planes than the 747 and 777
combined?and the 767-400 envelops 88 percent of all commercial
flights in the United States employing Boeing aircraft.
Nuclear plant structures are considerably smaller than the World
Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, making it physically
impossible for both engines and the fuselage of the plane to
transfer the full force of impact to the containment building or
other facilities analyzed.
The assumed speed of the aircraft used in the study is 350 miles
per hour?approximately the speed at which the aircraft struck the
Pentagon, based on reported flight recorder data and analysis of
security camera video that captured the impact. Experienced
pilots say this is a realistic speed to apply in a scenario where
the pilot of a large jetliner wishes to maintain flight
maneuverability close to the ground and execute a precise hit.
Although full analytical details will not be released to the
public for security reasons, NEI announced the following general
results:
· For the models representing all types of U.S.
containment buildings, no parts of the engine, the fuselage, the
wings or the jet fuel entered the containment buildings. The
containment structure was not breached, despite some crushing and
spalling (chipping of material at the impact point) of the
concrete.
· Evaluation of the models representing both types of used
fuel pools determined that the stainless steel pool liner ensures
there would be no loss of pool cooling water even though some
crushing and cracking of the concrete occurred at the point of
impact. Because the used fuel pools were not breached, there
would be no release of radioactivity to the environment.
· For the analyzed dry fuel storage facilities, the steel
canister containing the used fuel assemblies was not breached.
Because the dry storage structure was not breached, there would
be no release of radioactivity to the environment.
· For the analyzed used fuel transportation container, the
container was not breached, so there would be no release of
radioactivity to the environment.
Representative structures were analyzed because U.S. nuclear
power plant construction varies from site to site.
[Click on the Safety First button of the NEI web site to access
the Graphics Gallery that contains a cutaway image of a typical
containment building and a scale comparison of nuclear power
plant structures to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.]
For complete details, see Deterring Terrorism: Aircraft Crash
Impact Analyses Demonstrate Nuclear Power Plant?s Structural
Strength
Copyright © 2002 Nuclear Energy Institute. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
29 Report: Nuke plant can take plane hit; some analysts disagree
GreenvilleOnline.com - News
December 25, 2002 - 5:55 pm
By Bob Montgomery ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER
bmontgom@greenvillenews.com
Duke Power officials hailed a report released this week that
supports what nuclear industry officials have been saying since
9/11 -- that power plants, with their thick concrete,
steel-reinforced walls, can withstand a direct hit by a
fuel-loaded jetliner without causing mass casualties.
But nuclear watchdog groups are skeptical of the report,
done for the nuclear industry advocacy group the Nuclear Energy
Institute, because the details of calculations used were kept
secret for security reasons. They say the report also fails to
address safety improvements at power plants.
"It's not in the industry's best interest to say they are
vulnerable to a plane crash," said Edwin Lyman, scientific
director and incoming president of the Nuclear Control Institute,
a nuclear nonproliferation group. "A good reason not to trust the
analysis is because of the high stakes involved."
Oconee Nuclear Station and its three reactors near Seneca
on Lake Keowee, built in the 1970s and relicensed by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, is typical of a facility analyzed
by the report, said Tom Shiel, spokesman for Duke Power, which
operates Oconee.
"We've been saying since Sept. 11 the structures are
robust, but there had never been a study of the aircraft that
flew into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon," Shiel said.
"This confirms what we've been saying -- it includes the
airliners similar to the ones used in New York and Washington."
Nuclear power accounts for about 20 percent of the nation's
electricity production. Many utilities are in the process of
relicensing their power plants to enable them to operate years
beyond their original targeted lifespan.
The study for the Nuclear Energy Institute, performed by
ABS Consulting of Irvine, Calif., calculated the impact of a
large aircraft full of fuel striking a nuclear power plant at
speeds similar to the speed of the jetliner that struck the
Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 -- about 350 mph.
Nuclear plants were designed to withstand tornadoes and
earthquakes, but not jetliners, said Roger Hannah, a spokesman
for the NRC.
Hannah said the NRC has not yet reached conclusions about
the impact of a jetliner crash. He said he can't comment on the
findings so far because the material is classified. He also
declined to comment on the new report until an NRC report is
finished.
In 1997, the NRC issued a report on a worst-case scenario
involving a huge radiation release. It said it would result in
nearly 17,000 deaths within a 50-mile radius of the Oconee plant
and nearly 29,000 deaths within 500 miles of the facility.
Greenville is about 35 miles east of the plant.
Bob Dick, who supervised construction of the Oconee
Nuclear Station, has said there are several lines of defense from
any major crash, and that the reactor vessels are underground,
protected by a floor of steel-reinforced 5-foot thick concrete.
Since Sept. 11, President Bush has mentioned nuclear
power plants as possible targets of a terrorist attack, prompting
pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear groups to scrutinize the safety.
Joe F. Colvin, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute,
said nuclear plants are much smaller than the World Trade Center
towers and the Pentagon, making them unlikely targets for
terrorists.
"Clearly, an impact of this magnitude would do great
damage to a plant's ability to generate electricity," Colvin
said. "But the findings show that public health and safety would
be protected."
Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy
and Environmental Research, a group that advocates scientific
solutions to public policy issues, said he is concerned that the
nuclear industry could become complacent because no terrorist
attacks on power plants have been attempted yet.
"It's irresponsible for the industry to say there are no
problems," he said. "The safety goes beyond the question of
whether a plane will go through a reactor core. Will the
operation control systems be operative? A number of issues cannot
be so easily dismissed by saying structures can withstand
crashes.
"I'm not advocating nuclear plants to be shut down
overnight. But I think spent fuel pools and control room safety
need to be addressed with a great deal of urgency."
Bob Montgomery covers the environment and can be reached
at 298-4295.
Copyright 2001 The Greenville News
*****************************************************************
30 Russia forges ahead with Iran reactor
BBC NEWS | Middle East |
Thursday, 26 December, 2002,
[Alexander Rumyantsev meets Iran's parliamentary
speaker, Mehdi Karrubi]
The Bushehr plant is due to be finished two years early
Russia and Iran have agreed to speed up the construction of the
Islamic republic's first nuclear reactor, in the face of strong
American criticism.
Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev and the head
of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, Gholamreza Aqazadeh,
finalised details in Tehran on Wednesday.
[Satellite image of Arak site ]
The US believes Iran's new facilities could produce nuclear
weapons
Mr Rumyantsev brushed aside the concerns of Washington - which
sees Iran as part of a global "axis of evil" - saying the project
met all international regulations and was for civilian use only.
"We always tell our American colleagues that all co-operation
between Iran and Russia conforms to international regulations and
the resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA)," he told a news conference.
Russia began work building a reactor worth $800m near the
south-western port of Bushehr this autumn - the plant is due to
be commissioned at the end of 2003.
It says that the project will not enable Iran to create nuclear
weapons as all spent fuel will be returned to Russia but
questions remain over the safeguards for this procedure.
New sites
Mr Aqazadeh said the two countries had also agreed to carry out
feasibility studies for a second power-generation unit within a
few months.
[Nuclear sites around Tehran]
The United States recently released satellite photographs of
Bushehr and two other sites in Iran which have been earmarked for
nuclear facilities: Arak and Natanz.
The construction of the plant at Bushehr is taking place under
IAEA supervision.
But the agency's inspectors are not due to visit Arak and Natanz
until late February, when a delegation led by IAEA director
Mohammed ElBaradei is due to arrive.
Both sites, US officials say, are both of a type that could be
used to build nuclear warheads.
Russia's nuclear deal with Iran has raised questions in
Washington and elsewhere.
Last week, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said the United
States questioned why oil-rich Iran needed to pursue a nuclear
energy programme.
© MMII | News Sources | Privacy
*****************************************************************
31 Japan To Expand Subsidies To Promote Pluthermal Pwr-Kyodo
Thursday December 26, 7:48 AM
TOKYO (Dow Jones)--Japan's industry ministry will expand
subsidies to local governments in a bid to advance the stalled
plan to begin power generation fueled by uranium-plutonium mixed
oxide, or MOX, Kyodo News reported Thursday.
The "pluthermal" plan to burn MOX fuels in existing nuclear
reactors reached an impasse when both Fukushima and Niigata
prefectures, in northern Japan, retracted their earlier
agreements in the wake of the recent coverup scandal involving
Tokyo Electric Power Co. (J.TER or 9501) at three plants in
their regions. Another plan for pluthermal generation by Kansai
Electric Power Co. (J.KEP or 9503) in Fukui Prefecture, central
Japan, has been suspended due to an earlier data-manipulation
scandal of MOX fuel imported from the U.K.
In an attempt to revive the program, the Ministry of Economy,
Trade and Industry plans to give Y20 million annually for up to
five years to help prefectural governments to which power
utilities have applied for pluthermal generation persuade
residents to accept the plans, Kyodo quoted ministry officials as
saying.
The central government will also triple the level of subsidies
provided in line with power output if MOX is used instead of
uranium fuels, they said.
Copyright © 2002 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
32 NRC: LSNARP charter renewal
FR Doc 02-32545
[Federal Register: December 26, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 248)]
[Notices] [Page 78828] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26de02-111]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Licensing Support System Advisory Reivew Panel AGENCY: Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of renewal of the Charter
of the Licensing Support Network Advisory Review Panel (LSNARP).
SUMMARY: The Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel was
established by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a
Federal Advisory Committee in 1989. Its purpose was to provide
advice on the fundamental issues of design and development of an
electronic information management system to be used to store and
retrieve documents relating to the licensing of a geologic
repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste, and
on the operation and maintenance of the system. This electronic
information management system was known as the Licensing Support
System (LSS). In November, 1998 the Commission approved
amendments to 10 CFR part 2 that renamed the Licensing Support
System Advisory Review Panel as the Licensing Support Network
Advisory Review Panel.
Membership on the Panel continues to be drawn from those
interests that will be affected by the use of the LSN, including
the Department of Energy, the NRC, the State of Nevada, the
National Congress of American Indians, affected units of local
governments in Nevada, the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, and a
coalition of nuclear industry groups. Federal agencies with
expertise and experience in electronic information management
systems may also participate on the Panel.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that renewal
of the charter for the LSNARP until December 12, 2004 is in the
public interest in connection with duties imposed on the
Commission by law.
This action is being taken in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act after consultation with the Committee
Management Secretariat, General Services Administration. FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew L. Bates, Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555: Telephone 301-504-1963.
Dated: December 19, 2002. Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee
Management Officer. [FR Doc. 02-32545 Filed 12-24-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
33 Wise woman seeks answers to cancer rates in Southwest Virginia*
/Thursday, December 26, 2002/
*By Steve Igo *
/Times-News/
Amanda Griffin. Ken Murray photo.
WISE - Amanda Griffin carries a basket loaded down with some
serious-looking scientific documentation. She hefts it around
with as much nonchalance as if it was only a stack of laundry in
a hamper.
Carefully folded and stacked hot, straight out of the dryer.
"I'm a mother and a housewife," says Griffin, a 24-year-old Wise
resident and mother of a preschooler and a toddler. She waves a
hand over the basket of files stuffed with paperwork and
reference materials.
"That's not my surveys. That's just some of the information I've
gathered and notes to places and people I've called. I've got a
whole file cabinet full of stuff at home."
Forget the small talk. She gets down to cases. She flings around
terms like ionizing radiation and radon and carcinogens as easily
as if she were chatting about recipes.
She explains she was diagnosed with a thyroid problem in October.
Surgery to remove tiny tumors determined to be cancerous took
place in September. She was off on the cancer-causing trail by
early November.
The 1996 Pound High School graduate who keeps house and family in
Wise obviously isn't the sort who mopes. One suspects there's not
a single speck of dust in her house that doesn't flee for its
very life.
"I'm a determined person," she confesses. "When I get something
on my mind? I just do it."
Griffin has contacted public health agencies from Wise to
Richmond. The Southwest Virginia Cancer Center in Norton. The
Centers for Disease Control and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, both in Atlanta.
The University of Virginia's Toxicology and Poison Control Center
in Charlottesville. The state Department of Environmental Quality
in Abingdon. The Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy in Big
Stone Gap. The Environmental Protection Agency and the National
Cancer Institute, both in Washington, D.C.
They've mailed her tons of documentation. She'd really prefer
that one or the other or all dispatch teams of scientists to
conduct a detailed cancer cluster/potential carcinogens survey of
Wise and Dickenson counties.
In the meantime? She's conducting her own survey. Her own
off-the-cuff cancer cluster study, if you will. Somebody at one
of those agencies suggested as much. So, she is.
"I know it's not scientific or anything. I hope to get their
attention and maybe they will look into this," she explains.
"Maybe with enough information somebody somewhere will get
curious and take a look."
Griffin has devised a simple survey form accompanied by a cover
letter. She is getting copies into as many hands as she can find
to take them.
"I hope that you will take the time to answer a few questions,"
reads her survey introduction in part. "I am doing this survey in
memory of all the people in our area and other areas that have
died of cancer or a brain tumor."
She advises potential respondents that the results will be
forwarded to the Virginia Department of Health, the CDC and the
National Cancer Institute. But she is careful to make clear she's
not the agent of any of the above.
"This survey is not being done by (any) of the above
organizations," she writes, "but is instead being done by a
concerned citizen."
Besides standing on a street corner handing surveys out, she put
an ad on a local public access television channel. Then there's
the hi-tech method, otherwise referred to as the phone book.
"I just finished the A's," Griffin explains with a smile, as if
calling everybody in the phone book is not a daunting
proposition. "I'm just starting on the B's."
Griffin believes there are just too many cancer victims in the
region, including far too many children, for there not to be a
cause or causes "out there somewhere" in the environment.
"I feel like there has to be a reason," she says. "To have so
many (cancers and victims) in our area, there has to be something
in our area. You're not going to tell me that so many children in
our communities get cancer and it's all due to heredity. I just
haven't found it yet. But I will find it."
She doesn't consider herself a crusader tilting at windmills.
She's a person who wants answers.
"I never have let (my own condition) bother me all that much,"
she explains. "I never let it get me down. I push myself to make
myself do this. I think at first it bothered me to have cancer.
It opened my eyes to other people who have cancer, to how many
endure this."
Griffin has more sympathy for others than herself.
"I feel like I've been blessed to have the kind of cancer I have.
Mine isn't bad at all compared to what other people are dealing
with," she says. "Instead of looking at the negative, I want
something positive to come out of this."
For more information call (276)328-1210 or write: Independent
Survey, P.O. Box 7094, Wise VA.
/*Copyright 2002 Kingsport Times-News. All rights reserved. This
*****************************************************************
34 Expounding a New View of Accidents
The New York Times
By Mark Filmer
Thursday, 26 December 2002
THERE had been no consultation with Central West councils about a
proposal to transport nuclear waste through the region, contrary
to claims made in an environmental impact statement about the
proposal, according to Federal Member for Calare Peter Andren.
The EIS says the Federal Government has consulted widely with
potentially affected communities, however, Mr Andren says this is
not the case.
"There are statements in the EIS about consultations with
councils but from what I can see they have only talked to
Katoomba and Broken Hill councils,? he said.
"It claims to have had widespread consultation but it has only
consulted a couple of councils and none in the Central West.?
Mr Andren was responding to reports the Federal Government was
preparing to use its constitutional powers to override state
objections to it transporting nuclear waste from Lucas Heights in
Sydney for storage in outback South Australia.
The Federal Government is well advanced with plans to dispose of
low level and short-lived intermediate level radioactive waste at
a dump site near Woomera. The preferred route for the movement of
the waste is through Bathurst, Orange and Dubbo.
If approved, more than 130 truck movements of radioactive waste
would pass through rural communities next year and further
movements would continue for 40 years.
The Commonwealth has no plan for the long-term management of
medium and high-level radioactive waste.
But it is considering utilising a site near Broken Hill, which
was the second option during earlier national site studies.
Mr Andren has argued for the air transport of waste on the basis
it would be safer.
He said Australia had to solve its own storage problem rather
than export the waste to another country.
Speaking in Orange on Monday, NSW Premier Bob Carr said he would
be disappointed if the Commonwealth ignored community concerns
and transported the waste by road through major regional centres.
"I think the Federal Government has got some hard work to do to
explain to communities the level of risk involved and the level
of protection the Commonwealth will deliver,? he said.
"It is true that they have the constitutional power to overrule
any state government when it comes to something like this, but I
would urge them to sit down with affected communities and explain
the level of risk and explain the level of safeguard.?
The Friends of the Earth (FoE) has warned any attempt to dump
waste on unwilling communities could end in the High Court, as
both South Australia and Western Australia were moving to
legislate against disposal of higher level nuclear waste.
FoE recently concluded a tour of the planned waste transport
route to highlight the growing opposition and concern in rural
and regional NSW to the proposal.
"Any movement of radioactive waste would place significant
demands on the planning, resources and response capacity of
regional emergency services,? said FoE campaigner Loretta
O'Brien.
*****************************************************************
40 Nuclear Waste Plant to be Launched
Digital Chosunilbo (English Edition) : Daily News in English
Updated Dec.25,2002 16:23 KST
by Cha Byung-hak (swany@chosun.com)
A nuclear power plant in the country is poised to commercialize a
technology in which radioactive waste from nuclear power plants
is condensed up to 80 percent of its original quantity.
Korea Hydro &Nuclear Power Co. (KHNPC), the nuclear
power-generation unit of state-owned Korea Electric Power Corp.
(KEPCO), announced Wednesday that it has succeeded in developing
a technique to vitrify or burn the low- and intermediate-level
radioactive waste and mixing the residue with glass. The company
said that the vitrification plant would be installed in two
nuclear power plants under construction in Uljin, North Gyeongsan
Province.
The company said it would be the first commercialization of a
vitrification plant in the world.
The process works by turning decontaminated waste into a glass
log. The log is then encased in a 4-foot-high stainless steel
canister that resembles an old-fashioned milk can.
The firm said it began a feasibility study for the technology in
1994, and has been refining the technology, along with Hyundai
Mobis and SGN, a French nuclear engineering firm, for three
years, since 1999.
*****************************************************************
41 Sweden approves limited MOX use
Reprosessing plant Sellafield, located at the western coast of
England, is the largest source to radioactive contamination of
the north-east Atlantic ocean.
Swedish christmas present for Sellafield Approves limited MOX use
Sellafield-produced MOX-fuel may find its way to Sweden. The
Swedish Government has reluctantly given approval to OKG AB to
use a limited amount of MOX-fuel in the Oskarshamn nuclear power
plant.
Erik Martiniussen, 2002-12-26 14:39
The approval gives OKG AB the opportunity to return 850 kilos of
plutonium recovered at the Sellafield Thermal Oxide Reprocessing
Plant (THORP). According to the contracts between OKG AB and
British Nuclear Fuel Ltd (BNFL) the Swedish plutonium will be
converted in to MOX fuel in the Sellafield MOX plant (SMP).
The licence is limited and does not mean a changed policy for
treatment of Swedish nuclear waste.
Unplanned stoppages
The Swedish plutonium is a product of spent nuclear fuel sent to
Sellafield by OKG AB between 1975 and 1982. In the 1980’s the
Swedish government subsequently reversed its spent fuel policy of
reprocessing in favour of the direct disposal of its spent
nuclear fuel.
According to the English environmental organisation CORE, BNFL
was alarmed by the Swedish plans in 1996 to have its spent fuel
returned to Sweden unreprocessed. BNFL promptly reprocessed all
the fuel in 1997, well in advance of its scheduled reprocessing
date.
Anyway it will probably take some time before the Swedish
MOX-fuel will be shipped to Oskashamn. Despite BNFL’ s best
efforts to get SMP into full production in order to meet customer
delivery targets, unplanned stoppages have contributed to the
plant’s slow commissioning progress. Early statements by BNFL
indicated delivery of the first assemblies in January 2003. But
when Bellona inspected the plant last week, the first MOX-fuel
assemblies was expected in april 2003. SMP was commissioned in
December 2001.
Switzerland first
It is still uncertain when the plant will start the production
of the Swedish MOX assemblies. The first assemblies are to be
sent to Switzerland. Two weeks ago the SMP was forced to a halt
because of problems with the constructions of a fuel pin.
Still smarting from the negative publicity surrounding the return
shipment of rejected MOX-fuel from Japan to Sellafield this
summer, BNFL is planning to ship the new MOX to Europe with
reduced levels of safety and security for the dangerous cargo.
Instead of using their MOX carriers, Pacific Pintail and Pacific
Teal, BNFL are planning to ship MOX to Europe with Atlantic
Osprey, a ship bought second-hand by BNFL in 2001 from the German
shipping firm Adler &Sohne.
The Atlantic Osprey has few of the safety/security features
attributed to BNFL’s MOX carriers. No naval cannon or other
armament has been added and unlike the Pacific ships the Atlantic
Osprey will travel unescorted around the British coast to Europe.
The Atlantic Osprey must rely on a single engine, and has no
double hull.
Bellona visit
The Bellona foundation inspected the Sellafield MOX plant last
week. Bellona also had meetings with BNFL staff, and discussed
different ways of cleaning out Technetium-99 (Tc-99) from the
discharges. The British environmental minister Michael Meacher
have instructed the Environmental Agency to find out if it is
possible to put a moratorium on the Tc-99 discharges.
Bellona also visited the tanks where BNFL store vast amounts of
Tc-99 contaminated liquid waste. The tanks was constructed in
1951 and was once part of the secret British weapons programme.
Today there are about 2000 cubic metres of radioactive liquid
waste in the tanks, containing about 200 Terrabecquereles of
Tc-99.
Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22
38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
42 Labor's anti-nuclear waste stance just 'crocodile tears' -
smh.com.au
By Aban Contractor
December 27 2002
The NSW Government was crying "crocodile tears" when it
complained about federal plans to force a state or territory to
store hazardous nuclear waste, the Greens said yesterday.
The Greens Legislative Council candidate, Sylvia Hale, said Labor
was responsible for the current legislation which stopped anyone
transporting or storing nuclear waste except the Federal
Government.
She said the Premier, Bob Carr, and the Environment Minister, Bob
Debus, had left the people of NSW without legislative protection
from the risk of a nuclear accident.
A spokesman for Mr Debus said federal law overrode state law,
which was why amending the existing legislation or introducing
new legislation was pointless.
Ms Hale said if Labor was genuinely committed to opposing the
Commonwealth's plans it would immediately announce legislation
"to give teeth to their supposed anti-nuclear outrage".
The state's Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions)
Act 1986 specifically excludes the activities of Commonwealth
authorities from its operations, she said.
Ms Hale said section 8 (3) of the state act, which left NSW
powerless to stop the construction or operation of a nuclear
facility by any federal agency or authority, defined a nuclear
facility to include an installation for the storage or disposal
of any nuclear material.
Copyright © 2002. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
43 Nixon Ordered Nuke Alert to Signal USSR
Las Vegas SUN:
December 25, 2002 By RON KAMPEAS ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Nixon ordered a worldwide secret
nuclear alert in October 1969, calling his wartime tactic a
"madman strategy" aimed at scaring the Soviets into forcing
concessions from North Vietnam, declassified documents show.
It didn't work, as Moscow displayed no concern. The reason is
unclear. The Soviets may not have cared, may not have been as
influential as Nixon believed - or, like the rest of the world,
might not have noticed the alert.
The aim of the alert was kept secret from even the generals who
put it into place.
The bluff was part of what Nixon described as a "madman" strategy
to his new administration at the outset of 1969: ratcheting up
military pressure on the North Vietnamese at unpredictable
intervals to pressure them into concessions at peace talks in
Paris.
Nixon believed this would accelerate accommodation by the North
Vietnamese, forcing them into an agreement that would leave U.S.
ally South Vietnam in place.
Among declassified documents published this week by the
independent National Security Archive is a memo to National
Security Adviser Henry Kissinger from his assistant, Gen.
Alexander Haig. It described plans to signal "U.S. intent to
escalate military operations in Vietnam in the face of continued
enemy intransigence in Paris."
Among the "signals" in Haig's March 2 outline: bombing enemy
positions in Cambodia. On March 17, Nixon launched a massive
secret bombing campaign against communist bases in that country.
Despite such pressures, the Paris talks remained deadlocked, and
Nixon began to contemplate the nuclear alert in the summer of
1969.
A memo telegraphed Oct. 19 from Gen. Earle Wheeler, the Joint
Chiefs of Staff chairman, to all his commanders in chief ordered
a "series of actions during the period 13 October - 25 October to
test our military readiness in selected areas worldwide to
respond to possible confrontation by the Soviet Union. These
actions should be discernible to the Soviets, but not threatening
in themselves."
He recommended grounding combat aircraft in selected areas for
readiness checks, periods of radio silence and increased
surveillance of Soviet ships - all actions that suggested
posturing for a nuclear conflict, and which the Americans
believed the Soviets were sure to notice. A later "talking
points" document showed Wheeler also ordered heightened combat
readiness for ground troops.
The alert spread far beyond the Southeast Asian theater, and
included U.S. forces in the Mideast and Europe.
The commanders carrying out the orders did not know the purpose
of the exercise. Wheeler told them only that "we have been
directed by a higher authority," an apparent reference to Nixon's
immediate policy circle.
In an Oct. 17 diary entry, Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman wrote:
"(Kissinger) has all sorts of signal-type activity going on
around the world to try to jar the Soviets and NVN (North
Vietnam)."
Keeping the secret to a small circle of advisers prevented leaks
as well as widespread panic and protest, anathema to Nixon's
plans to tightly control the war maneuvering. But it may have
backfired.
According to a report on the nuclear alert in the January 2003
issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Soviet Ambassador
Anatoly Dobrynin betrayed no knowledge - or concern - of the
nuclear alert in a meeting with a U.S. official a few days after
the alert.
The Soviets resented attempts to use means unrelated to the
Vietnam conflict to pressure them to rein in the North
Vietnamese. Nixon brought Vietnam into arms reduction and Mideast
talks as well. Although the Soviets were a major arms supplier to
North Vietnam, Hanoi adeptly played the USSR against the Chinese,
threatening a move to the other sphere of influence at the first
sign of pressure
On the Net: National Security Archive: Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists:
All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
44 Residents file lawsuit over blaze at Hanford
The Seattle Times: Local News:
Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 12:00 a.m. Pacific
By The Associated Press
KENNEWICK — The federal government is facing a $108 million
lawsuit filed by more than 100 parties over damage from a fire on
the Hanford nuclear reservation. The lawsuit, filed this week,
also says the fire is responsible for two deaths — the first time
such allegations have surfaced publicly.
The wildfire started June 27, 2000, when a car collided with a
tractor-trailer rig on Highway 24 and blackened 300 square miles,
destroying 11 homes in Benton City and much of the shrub-steppe
habitat on the Hanford Reach National Monument. It was the
largest burn on the U.S. Department of Energy reservation since a
fire that also spread onto private land in 1984.
Residents are holding the government responsible for what they
say is shoddy land management and misguided fire-suppression
efforts.
One Benton City survivor, whose home was spared, said the lawsuit
isn't about money.
"This is about changing policy," Jerry Rose said. "The only way
they recognize something is wrong is when a big lawsuit hits them
in the face."
A team of lawyers from Seattle, Spokane and Kennewick has been
working on the lawsuit for two years. They represent Benton City
residents, insurance companies that made payments for fire
damage, Benton County and others.
Department of Energy officials said in 2000 that firebreaks might
not have stopped the blaze.
"There were no findings that concern lack of performance of the
organization," said Keith Benguiat, division director of
engineering, safety and standards at the department's Richland
office in November 2000.
"There were no incidents of misdirecting people. As fast as you
could get people, we deployed them. We did what we could with the
resources that were available."
The Seattle Times Company
*****************************************************************
45 Lichens Are Surprisingly Precise Air Quality Monitors, BYU
Father-Son Team Finds
ScienceDaily News Release:
Source:
Young University
2002-12-26
PROVO, Utah -- Lichens, combinations of fungi and algae, are
quietly trodden underfoot by animals and hikers the world over.
Now a new study by a Brigham Young University father-son team has
demonstrated that lichens could replace expensive environmental
monitors since they accumulate some pollutants in concentrations
that correctly manifest the amount of the pollutants in the
surrounding air.
"Previously, we knew that lichens took things up from the air,
but no one had any significant results indicating that what is in
the lichen accurately reflects what is in the air," said Larry
St. Clair, the chair of BYU's department of integrative biology
and co-author of the study published in the latest issue of
Atmospheric Environment. "This is the first definitive data that
shows not only do lichens take pollution up from the air, but
they take it up in patterns that exactly reflect the amount of
pollutants in the air."
Lacking roots, stems and leaves, lichens can grow almost
anywhere, but rely on nutrients they accumulate from the air.
Thus, they are uniquely sensitive to air pollution, making them
valuable as early warning indicators of reduced air quality.
Scientists have used them as biomonitors for decades, including
an effort to estimate the amount of nuclear fallout from the
Chernobyl melt down in the late 1980s.
Since St. Clair's son Sam was 6 years old, he has helped his
father gather lichen samples from more than 400 sites in the
U.S.'s Mountain West from Mexico to Canada. For the new study,
the duo focused on lichens collected at Chiricahua National
Monument in southeastern Arizona for part of Sam's graduate work
in botany at BYU.
Noting significant copper smelting activity in the area, the
researchers took advantage of bi-weekly mechanical measurement of
copper levels in the ambient air between 1994 and 1998 conducted
by scientists at University of California, Davis. The St. Clair
pair recorded the levels of copper absorbed by lichens collected
at selected sites in the Monument and compared the results to
those generated by the machines. The concentration of copper in
the lichens reflected the concentration of copper in the air.
"If such relationships are found to be robust in further
studies, it would mean that we would be able to predict air
quality status by collecting lichen samples and determining their
elemental content," said Sam St. Clair, now pursuing a Ph. D. at
Pennsylvania State University. "Air quality status could
therefore be quantified wherever lichens are present."
Using lichens would eliminate the need for installation and
maintenance of expensive and immobile air sampling equipment that
collects airborne particulates using filters, which are later
removed and analyzed in a lab.
"In essence the lichen tissue appears to functions like a
natural filter, accumulating airborne pollutants as they are
deposited on the lichen surface," Sam St. Clair said.
The technique for analyzing pollutant elements on a filter or in
lichen tissue is the same.
The St. Clairs' paper was co-authored by BYU professors Nolan F.
Mangelson and Darrell J. Weber.
Editor's Note: The original news release can be found here. YYYYY
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued for
journalists and other members of the public. If you wish to quote
any part of this story, please credit Brigham Young University as
the original source. You may also wish to include the following
link in any citation:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021226072410.
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************