Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
--------
Blood test measures radiation damage
Gong spends lifetime researching health effects of low-level radiation
By LOIS BAKER
News Services Editor
Gong, Dr. Joseph - jgong@facilities.buffalo.edu, joseph_gong@sdm.buffalo.edu
Gong's article can be found here:
http://www.buffalo.edu/Reporter//vol31/vol31n18/n8.html
VOLUME 31, NUMBER 18
THURSDAY, February 3, 2000
Scientists from UB report that they have developed and patented a simple blood test that can measure accumulated cell damage from ionizing radiation-one of the major causes of cancer-long before any physical signs are evident.
Results of research that led to the development of the test, described as a "life-long wide-range radiation biodosimeter," appear in the December issue of Health Physics.
Joseph K. Gong, associate professor emeritus of oral diagnostic sciences and chair of UB's Radioisotope Safety Committee, is lead author on the paper. Gong has spent a lifetime researching, lecturing and writing on the health effects of low-level radiation. His work has centered on seeking a predictable, accurate and practical cell marker of internal biological damage from radiation, using a rat model.
Gong's test, called the Transferrin Receptor Red Cell Assay, or E-Tr assay, measures the amount of radiation that has been absorbed by the body. Using a specific biomarker, it reveals the extent of stem-cell mutations due to exposure to X-ray, or to anything potentially carcinogenic that mimics X-ray damage, such as many chemicals used in the microchip industry.
"All cancers develop from a pool of mutated cells that are 'turned on' by one or more triggers," Gong said. "The larger the pool of mutated cells, the greater the risk. Cancer can take years to decades to develop, depending on the type.
"This test provides a way to measure the damage before the first sign of cancer appears," Gong said. "It also can determine if cell mutations from ionizing radiation are increasing over time. If so, the individual can take steps to stop the increase, perhaps through a change in job, diet or environment. It gives people more control over their health."
The method most widely used to determine radiation exposure in the workplace is a badge containing radiation-sensitive film, which the worker wears on the job. The badge measures external radiation exposure only.
Gong and his co-investigator, Chester A. Glomski, professor of anatomy and cell biology, were able to show that radiation exposure causes stem cells-the "mother" of all blood cells-to express an excess of erythrocytes (red-blood cells) bearing receptors for the protein transferrin on their surface membrane. Knowing this cause and effect, it then became possible to use the number of red blood cells with transferrin receptors as a biomarker for radiation exposure. Subsequent blood tests can monitor any increase or decrease in cell damage.
The test, which requires a drop of blood and about two hours for analysis, is capable of measuring the effects of radiation doses ranging from normal levels experienced in everyday life to amounts that would kill 50 percent of those exposed within 30 days, Gong said.
The test could allow individuals who work in jobs that expose them to radiation or chemicals that mimic radiation's effects to know how much cellular damage they've experienced from the exposure and to make appropriate, well-informed health decisions, Gong noted. It can be taken as often as desired.
Such a test also could be useful to the general public to determine exposure to ionizing radiation, such as X-rays and gamma rays used in cancer treatment, Gong said, and to tiny amounts of ionizing radiation emitted by such consumer products as cellular phones, microwave ovens and computer screens.
After decades of working with an animal model, Gong and Glomski used the E-Tr assay on blood samples of seven cancer patients who had received radiation treatment and blood samples from 10 healthy individuals who had been exposed to only a few dental and chest X-rays to determine the effectiveness of the test on humans. The assay produced similar results in human blood samples as in the animal studies, the researchers found.
Gong postulates that this dose-response relationship will allow patients to reconstruct their past radiation doses, as well as project the amount of residual injury from past exposure that will exist at various times in the future.
Gong received an Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) grant in 1964 to study the biomedical effect of low-dose radiation. In 1965, a 20-year follow-up report on the survivors of the atomic bomb lead to a consensus among experts that low-dose radiation was safe.
That finding was overturned in 1986 after advances in measuring radiation made a reassessment possible, but in the interim, very little research in low-dose radiation was conducted. Gong, however, carried on his work in the field at UB for 35 years, buoyed by results obtained through the early AEC funded research, and accumulated data on the effects of radiation exposure from background amounts to lethality.
His decades-worth of data led to the recognition of the specific bone marrow syndrome induced by radiation and to the discovery of the E-Tr assay.
Also participating in the research was Yuqing Guo, biophysicist and research scientists at Biomira USA, Inc., in Cranbury, N.J.
-------- activists
ACT NOW! SOA vote in next 2 weeks!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000
SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS WATCH
http://www.soaw.org/
SOA VOTE IN NEXT TWO WEEKS! CALL THE CAPITOL NOW! DO NOT DELAY OR IT WILL BE TOO LATE! Don't Let the Pentagon Get Away With Their Deception!
Within the next two weeks, the Pentagon will ask Congress to Close the School of the Americas and immediately reopen a new school under a different name. The "new" school will still be located at Ft. Benning, will still train Latin American soldiers, and will still teach commando tactics, military intelligence, psychological operations, and combat skills. Even SOA supporter, Sen. Paul Coverdell (GA) calls the name change "cosmetic " -- a way to allow the SOA to "continue its purpose." Rep. Joe Moakley (MA) says it's "like pouring perfume on a toxic dump."
Both the House and the Senate will vote on the Pentagon's counterfeit proposal as part of the Defense Authorization Bill at the end of May.
PLEASE CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND SENATORS NOW! Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 URGE THEM TO ~
Ø REJECT THE PENTAGON SOA PROPOSAL ON THE DEFENSE BILL.
Ø CLOSE THE SOA AND NOT REOPEN IT UNDER ANY NAME.
SOA Watch ~ PO Box 4566 ~ W DC 20017 ~ 202-234-3440 ~ www.soaw.org
Close the School of Assassins!
----
From: Greater Manchester and District CND - gmdcnd@gn.apc.org
I am currently putting together the next issue of CADU news, our quarterly update on DU issues. If anyone out there has articles, however short, (and preferably not too long) that they feel could be included, would you forward them to this email address marked FOR CADU NEWS before Wednesday 17.5.00 Obviously I can't promise to include everything I receive, but I will do my best.
Cath Campaign Against Depleted Uranium
---
Geiger Counter for NGO in Kosova
From: Greater Manchester and District CND - gmdcnd@gn.apc.org
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:17:43 +0100
We had a request for help today from a small childrens' charity called Global Care, who are doing a lot of work in the Prizren area of Kosova. They are obviously extremely concerned about the threat of DU, particularly after receiving a memo on the issue addressed to all NGO's working in the area. Due to lack of detailed info on where DU was used, I was unable to be all that helpful. However, what they suggested was that they could take a geiger counter out there, to test the ares, especially the school buildings which were used by military personnel during hte conflict. Can anyone let me know exactly what sort of scientific instruments they would need to be able to pick up DU radiation, and if possible, how to get hold of such.
Also, if anyone has any more info on how to be more helpful to NGO's with problems like this, I'd appreciate it. Thanks Cath at Campaign Against Depleted Uranium
Greater Manchester and District Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (GM&DCND), One World Centre, 6 Mount Street, Manchester, M2 5NS, UK Tel: +44 (0)161 834 8301, Fax: +44 (0)161 834 8187, E-Mail: gmdcnd@gn.apc.org
The Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (CADU) can also be contacted care of the above *Should you wish to receive the quarterly CADU mailing by E-Mail please send a message to the above address
-----
De-alerting editorial from Washington Post, the NPT conference and the June summit in Moscow
From: "Steven Starr" shadesahoy@socket.net
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 01:00:23 -0500
The Washington Post recently published an editorial which suggested that President Clinton should focus on de-alerting Russian and American strategic nuclear forces (it was reprinted in the May 2 edition of my local newspaper). The editorial discussed the START III proposals linked to the U.S. NMD initiative, and noted that both the Russians and American Senators led by Jesse Helms were likely to oppose the whole mess. However, the editorial went on to state that, ³Arms-control specialists want Clinton and Putin to start thinking outside this box. One idea: If they can¹t agree to destroy more weapons, the presidents could agree to remove a large number of warheads from their launch-readiness state. President Bush and then Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev took such a 'reciprocal unilateral' step in 1991 when START I ratification was pending.'
I suggest that while everyone is faxing President Clinton to agree to the 'New Agenda Coalition' proposal--which specifies that the Nuclear Weapons States should agree to an unequivocal commitment to eliminate their nuclear arsenals during the 2000 to 2005 review period--that they also refer to the Washington Post editorial America suggesting that U.S. and Russian nuclear forces be taken off their current hair-trigger alert status.
Even if the U.S. fails to agree to the NAC proposal (which I think is likely), it could at least use de-alerting as a fall-back position. This would be a major accomplishment and it would not be subject to approval by Helms and the U.S. Senate. It would also set the stage for a successful summit in Moscow, which Clinton is hoping to use to create his final "legacy" as President. De-alerting would go a long way towards easing tensions, and it seems to me to be the key first step in moving away from the brink we are all standing upon.
----
Mothers Set for a Day of Marches for Gun Control
New York Times May 11, 2000
By ROBIN TONER
http://www.nytimes.com/00/05/11/news/national/mom-march.html
WASHINGTON -- Organizers of the Million Mom March for "sensible gun control" predicted today that at least 150,000 mothers and their allies would descend on the nation's capital on Sunday, with many others at similar rallies in 67 towns and cities.
Donna Dees-Thomases, the main organizer of the march, said the message to Congress was simple: "That we have had enough."
Mark Pertschuk, legislative director for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said at a news conference previewing the march that the event could be a transforming moment in the politics of gun control, comparable to the civil rights movement that spurred Congress to act after years of intransigence.
"The Million Mom March is demanding licensing and registration, and the National Rifle Association says it can't happen here, it won't work," Pertschuk said. "But Donna and the thousands of moms supporting her won't go away."
The march is committed to several gun control measures, including mandatory safety locks, the licensing of all handgun owners and the registering of all handguns.
Reflecting the potential power of the march on Mother's Day, the National Rifle Association has begun a television advertising campaign around the country expressing the group's commitment to "safe kids."
In one spot, the actress Susan Howard says: "Can we talk woman to woman? This week you'll hear lots of disagreement about gun politics. But I think we can all agree on gun safety. We all want safe kids." The commercial goes on to praise the association's gun safety education program and offers $1 million to put the program "in every classroom in America."
Ms. Dees-Thomases dismissed the advertisements as a "smoke screen," adding, "I think the mothers of this country are smart enough to recognize a gimmick when they see one."
The rifle association opposes licensing and registration, saying they are undue burdens on law-abiding citizens and unlikely to affect the criminals with guns.
Several march organizers spoke at the news conference about how they came to the movement.
Rachel Smith, the march coordinator for North Carolina, said her moment came after the shootings in Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., which left 15 dead and prompted an anxious request from her 11-year-old daughter, "Promise nobody will get shot at my school."
Ms. Smith said she had no previous political involvement beyond voting and "ranting and raving around the dinner table," but was now working 40 to 50 hours a week on this march.
"We have promised our children we'll do all we can to keep them safe," she said. "It is time for Congress to do the same."
Debbye Kelley-Watson of Washington, said she would be marching in memory of her son, gunned down three years ago at the age of 19.
"Enough is enough," Ms. Kelley-Watson said. "This Mother's Day I'm turning tears into action."
The roster of speakers on Sunday will include mothers whose children have been victims of gun violence, from Columbine High to the Michigan elementary school where a 6-year-old was killed by a classmate earlier this year.
Also scheduled to speak are Sarah and James Brady, who was wounded in the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Martin Luther King III, son of the slain civil rights leader, and Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend of Maryland, daughter of Robert F. Kennedy.
Ms. Dees-Thomases said the march had depended on its grassroots volunteers and contributions from corporate sponsors like the Dannon Company, the yogurt maker, and Parents Magazine, as well as allied groups like Handgun Control and donors like Irene Diamond, an arts patron, and George Soros, the financier.
---
Moms set policy goals for Sunday's rally
USA Today
05/10/00- Updated 09:17 PM ET
By Alison Gerber, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncswed18.htm
WASHINGTON - Soccer camps will meet gun control Sunday as a hoped-for 200,000 mothers and others descend on Washington for the Million Mom March.
The march's top policy goal is to promote handgun licensing and registration, organizers announced Wednesday. The newly formed Campaign for Licensing and Registration is a collaboration of march organizers and five gun-control advocacy groups.
Supporters argue licensing and registration will reduce the flow of illegal guns and the number of gun deaths. "It's like registering a car," said Mark Pertschuk of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "You can't take your car and give it to a drug dealer because the police are going to come to your door."
A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows adults are split about whether lawmakers need to enact new gun laws or simply enforce the existing ones. Of roughly 500 adults surveyed, 49% said enforcing the gun laws more strictly would be sufficient, while 46% said passing new laws is necessary.
Seventy-six percent of those surveyed favored registrations of all handguns. And, 69% favored the federal government requiring all handgun owners to obtain a special license. The poll was taken at the end of April and has a margin of error of 5 percentage points.
The new campaign will promote licensing that would require gun buyers to complete a safety course, undergo a criminal check and provide a thumbprint.
The National Rifle Association, meanwhile, announced that it will spend $1 million to educate children about gun safety. Television and newspaper ads running across the country this week are timed to coincide with the march.
The Million Mom March started as the idea of one woman in her New Jersey living room. It's now an army of volunteers and a public relations team. Celebrities such as Reese Witherspoon and Melissa Etheridge will march. Rosie O'Donnell will be master of ceremonies . Antonia Novello, the first female surgeon general of the USA , will be the keynote speaker.
Speakers include Martin Luther King III, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. , whose husband was killed and son injured in a random shooting on a commuter train, and Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy. Four parents whose children died in a 1996 shooting at a school in Dunblane, Scotland, will attend.
And the march won't stop at heart-wrenching stories of children, parents and friends killed by guns. The day will include soccer clinics, jugglers, clowns and a magic show for children.
Still, founder Donna Dees-Thomases said the day will send a signal to lawmakers.
"This isn't a feel-good day . It's the beginning of a grass-roots movement," she said.
---
Moms Marching for Gun Control
New York Times
May 11, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/editorial/11thu2.html
The Million Mom March taking place this Sunday in Washington and some 60 other cities across the nation has the potential to achieve something that a seemingly endless sequence of school shootings and other gun tragedies somehow has not. That critical something is to seize control of America's gun control debate from the National Rifle Association and its political mouthpieces. The spectacle of huge numbers of mothers organizing to protect their children is something even the N.R.A. will find hard to attack.
By demonstrating that there is a large, identifiable grass-roots constituency that supports sensible steps like full background checks before all gun sales and a new national system of gun licensing and registration, Sunday's event could help transform the gun control argument -- tilting it away from an archaic fixation on the rights of hunters and toward a recognition of the serious public health threat the nation's porous gun laws represent. For those frustrated by the failure of the political system to deliver meaningful gun control legislation, it is hard to think of a better way to spend Mother's Day.
The march comes at a critical moment. The nation is in the midst of a presidential election year in which gun control will surely be an issue. On Capitol Hill, a worthwhile if modest package of gun control measures remains bottled up in a House-Senate conference committee -- providing grist for this fall's battle between the Democrats and Republicans for control of Congress. Gun makers, facing lawsuits brought by localities harmed by the irresponsible design, marketing and distribution of their products, are under pressure to join Smith & Wesson in agreeing to change the way they do business -- a move they are still strongly resisting. Meanwhile more than 80 Americans, including about a dozen children, continue to die every day from gun violence.
The march will focus on child safety and will involve hundreds of thousands of mothers who also happen to be swing voters. It is therefore certain to get politicians' attention. But whether it will succeed in breaking through the ideological and partisan barriers that stand in the way of gun control remains to be seen. Obviously a lot depends on maintaining the event's nonpartisan tenor and, afterward, its momentum. The women and men who participate cannot abandon the battle after the day's protest is over.
The idea for the march originated with Donna Dees-Thomases, a New Jersey mother who says she was energized by the televised images of terrified children being led from their day camp to escape a gunman's shooting rampage in Granada Hills, Calif., last August. The tactic of invoking the moral authority of mothers to gain progress on a pressing social issue is not new. It worked remarkably well for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, for example, which played a big role in shifting attitudes on drinking and driving. We suspect, and strongly hope, that mom power can work similar magic for the gun control movement.
---
Church's Gay Stand Protested
New York Times
May 11, 2000
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/national/gay-methodist.html
CLEVELAND, May 10 -- Nearly 200 gay rights demonstrators were arrested today outside a United Methodist Church gathering on the eve of a vote by the church leadership that is expected to affirm its stand against homosexuality.
The protesters briefly interrupted an ecumenical service led by the Most Rev. George L. Carey, the archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the world's 70 million Anglicans. Archbishop Carey's sermon made only passing reference to "issues to do with personal freedom and its limits" like homosexuality and abortion.
One of those arrested was Arun Gandhi, a grandson of Mohandas K. Gandhi, one of the leaders of India's independence movement.
The demonstrators were jailed for a few hours and then charged with persistent disorderly conduct. Under a deal offered by prosecutors, most pleaded no contest, were found guilty and were then fined $100 plus court costs.
Several of the other demonstrators who were arrested were from the church's Northern Illinois Conference, including the Rev. Gregory Dell, a Chicago pastor who was suspended last year for presiding over a same-sex ceremony.
Since his one-year suspension began last July, Mr. Dell has headed In All Things Charity, a group that tries to persuade church leaders to honor same-sex relationships.
The General Conference meets every four years and is the chief policy-setting body for the church, the nation's third-largest denomination, with 8.4 million members in the United States and 1.2 million overseas.
The United Methodist Church opposes the ordination of gays and same-sex marriages, calling homosexuality "incompatible with Christian doctrine." It is expected to take up the issue of homosexuality on Thursday.
-------- alternative energy
Morocco launches its first wind power plant
MOROCCO: May 11, 2000
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=6621
RABAT - Morocco's King Mohammed on Wednesday inaugurated the country's first wind power plant in the northern area of Tetouan worth $47.6 million, a senior manager said on Wednesday.
"His Majesty King Mohammed inaugurated today the wind power farm at Koudia al-Baida, near Tetouan...one of the largest wind farms in the world and the first in Morocco," Driss Benhima, chairman of state-run Office National de l'Electricite (ONE) told Reuters.
"The plant was built at a cost of 510 million dirhams ($47.6 million)."
The plant will be managed by the Compagnie Eolienne du Detroit, which includes among its shareholders France's Electricite de France (EDF) and BNP-Paribas (BNPP.PA groups.
The plant is expected to produce 200,000 megawatt hours per year, the chairman said. "This output would represents two percent of Morocco's power production per year," he added.
-------- australia
NPT in Australian Parliament
Australian Parliament Senate Hansard
11 May 2000
From: "Clare Henderson" clare.henderson@bigpond.com.au MIME-Version: 1.0
Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (8.58 p.m.) -... ... Before parliament resumes again next month, the review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will have been completed. We cannot be sure what the outcome of this review will be at this stage, and the Democrats sincerely hope it will mean the elimination of nuclear weapons sooner rather than later. My concern is it is looking most unlikely, and I do not see Australia's role so far as promoting it sooner. In fact Australia is being seen in a somewhat poor light by non-government organisations in New York and by many countries as well. The perception is that everything Australia does is coloured by our defence relationship with the United States, and we have, for the life of this government at least, taken positions directly or indirectly in support of the United States. Last week in estimates the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials acknowledged that, despite the ratification of START II by the Russian Duma, progress on nuclear disarmament is, to say the least, going to be extremely slow.
One way Australia could have added pressure to the nuclear weapon states would be to join the other nations of the New Agenda Coalition, and I have raised this matter before in the Senate. The New Agenda Coalition was launched in Dublin in June 1998 with a joint declaration by the ministers for foreign affairs of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa and Sweden. Since 1998 the coalition has put up two resolutions at the United Nations calling for a new agenda for the speedy elimination of nuclear weapons, neither of which Australia supported. Its working paper tabled at the conference called for:
The five nuclear weapon states to make an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals and, in the course of the forthcoming Re- view period 2000-2005, to engage in an accelerated process of negotiations and to take steps leading to nuclear disarmament to which all States Parties are committed under Article VI.
I hope very much that Australia will support this call, and if it does not it will be a great pity indeed. The reason I have doubts that Australia will support it is that, during estimates, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said in relation to the New Agenda Coalition:
"So we really do see the New Agenda Coalition as helpful in some respects ... but we fear that they risk offering false hope in disarmament in areas which are not practical. The whole process of disarmament is a very complex one. By its very nature, we believe that it has to be taken step by step" and so on.
Australia's Anzac Day six-point plan has been put forward at the review but, even if this were to be implemented, we would still have nuclear weapons. All it is is a plan to stop other states gaining weapons. Australia put up a proposal, co-sponsored by Japan, which the Acronym Institute, for instance, said was `so modest it almost fell backwards'. There were plenty of other critics too. The Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War said:
"While many of these points are necessary steps in the path towards disarmament, this bland offering contains vague language such as `further efforts' and `Possible future steps' ... The paper does not maximise the possibilities offered by this conference. Nor does it address the lack of success experienced by this very program over the past five year period".
So I think it is fair to say we need to have steps to bring a commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons sooner rather than later. China, France, Russia, the UK and the US released a statement on 1 May which announced their:
"... unequivocal commitment to the ultimate goals of a com- plete elimination of nuclear weapons and a treaty on gen- eral and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
Whilst that statement is welcome, it does not give any commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons in the near future. There is no outline of any new measures, a timetable, or a program of action on how to achieve even that goal. And this commitment was matched by just as many saying that nuclear weapons were important to their national security. The use of the word `ultimate' I think says it all. We are not prepared to move in the short or medium term. `Ultimate' could be a century or more away. In the meantime, we could have the ultimate destruction of all mankind.. DEBATE END.
NO NUKES!
Clare Henderson Executive Officer Medical Association for Prevention of War PO Box 197 O'Connor ACT 2602 AUSTRALIA Ph: (02) 6262 9345 Fax: (02) 62629346 clare.henderson@mapw.au.nu
-------- china
China May Deploy More Warheads
Associated Press
May 11, 2000 Filed at 10:27 a.m. EDT
By The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-China-US.html
BEIJING (AP) -- China's top arms negotiator warned today that a proposed U.S. system to shoot down missiles could neutralize Beijing's nuclear arsenal, presenting a serious threat that may force China to deploy more warheads.
Sha Zukang, director of arms control and disarmament at China's Foreign Ministry, said other possible options to counter the deployment of a U.S. National Missile Defense could be to improve the accuracy of Chinese warheads or consider using countermeasures to overcome the missile shield.
Sha stressed that China, as a developing country, does not want to spend precious resources on ways to counter the proposed U.S. system. But he said Beijing could not merely rely on U.S. assurances that the missile shield would be aimed at protecting the United States from attack from smaller countries like North Korea that Washington considers rogue states.
``They have assured us it is not directed at China. For that we are grateful, we are happy. But China cannot base its security on assurances only,'' Sha said, speaking in English in a telephone interview.
If the United States goes ahead with the system, ``we cannot sit on our hands, watching our interests compromised, security interests compromised. Impossible.''
Sha's comments went further in their detail than previous Chinese statements, which have mainly warned that a U.S. missile shield could spark a costly and destabilizing arms race. China has also warned against including Taiwan, which Beijing regards as its territory, under a U.S. missile shield.
Including Taiwan would gravely violate Chinese sovereignty and ``surely meet with strong opposition from the Chinese people,'' Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue said today.
Sha said the system, which, if it works, would fire interceptors to shoot down incoming missiles, could ``neutralize'' China's ``very small arsenal,'' estimated at 20 to 30 warheads.
The missile system ``will have a serious effect and therefore it could affect China's security,'' he said. ``I have been told we could have a series of options. One of the options can be maybe to increase the number of our warheads.
``That increase certainly does not mean that China will participate in a nuclear arms race. But with this understanding, China could take this option to have more warheads.''
Sha said no decision had been made.
``Those are the last things we want to do. China is a developing country. We have still millions of people living under the poverty line,'' he said. ``That's why we are strongly advising the Americans not to go ahead with this program. It's not in their interest. It's certainly not in China's interest. It's not in anybody's interest.''
Sha also indicated that experts from China and Russia, which also opposes the proposal, are discussing possible techniques to overcome the missile shield.
``Our experts are working together, consulting with each other how to confront that situation,'' he said. He gave no details.
Zhang, the Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, also voiced opposition today to a proposed U.S. watchdog commission to monitor human rights in China as part of efforts to win Congressional support for legislation granting China permanent normal trade relations.
Zhang urged passage of the trade legislation without conditions, ``otherwise the business interests of the United States will be hurt.''
---
China Wary of U.S. Anti-Missile Plan
Futuristic defense system would upset `balance of terror,' top official says
San Francisco Chronicle
Thursday, May 11, 2000
Erik Eckholm, New York Times
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/05/11/MN73302.DTL
Beijing -- China's chief arms negotiator said yesterday that the U.S. proposal to build an anti-missile defensive shield poses an unacceptable threat to China's security and could force it to significantly expand its own nuclear forces in response.
The Chinese find it hard to believe U.S. claims that the proposed ``national missile defense'' is only intended to counter threats from small rogue states like North Korea, the official, Sha Zukang, said in an interview.
But whatever the intention, he said, the systems under discussion would destroy China's ability to deter nuclear attack by neutralizing its relatively small force of nuclear missiles.
``Your system would be good enough to neutralize whatever offensive capacity we now have,'' Sha said, leaving China dangerously vulnerable to bullying or attack. If that appears likely, he added, ``We will not sit on our hands.''
``How can we base our own national security on your assurances of good will?'' asked Sha, director-general of arms control in the Foreign Ministry.
Sha said a ``balance of terror'' had kept nuclear peace for decades and remained the only realistic course until such weapons are phased out. The U.S. missile defense proposal, he said, would prompt a new global arms race and possibly what he called a ``nightmare scenario'' of weapons proliferation.
Although the feasibility of a missile defense shield is not yet proved, President Clinton is under pressure to decide soon whether to embark on a crash program costing tens of billions of dollars to develop and deploy a system of sensors, missiles and futuristic weapons that could destroy a small number of incoming missiles.
The proposal has been vehemently opposed by Russia, which like China fears the system would blunt its power and, like China, wants to avoid a costly arms race. In the debate in Washington, the Russian objections have received far greater attention than those from China, in part because deploying the defensive system would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty signed by the United States and the Soviet Union.
Since China developed nuclear weapons in the 1960s, it has avoided trying to match U.S. and Soviet arsenals, instead keeping a small fleet of missiles as a minimal deterrent, able to retaliate in the event of attack.
Western experts believe that at present China has no more than about two dozen land-based missiles, with one warhead each, capable of reaching the continental United States, compared with the thousands of warheads the United States could deliver by land- or sea- based missiles or bombers. Sha said China would ``have to do something'' if the U.S. missile defense plan proceeds. The options, he said, include a significant increase in the number of nuclear warheads that China would field, improvements in the accuracy and other traits of warheads and the development of methods to destroy or frustrate the anti-missile shield.
He said China and Russia were discussing possible cooperation in developing techniques ``to restore strategic stability,'' including methods ``to defeat your system,'' but he declined to be more specific.
---
China warns U.S. on nuclear shield
It could mean another arms race, says Beijing's negotiator
MSNBC 05/11/00
http://www.msnbc.com/news/406271.asp?cp1=1
BEIJING, May 11 - China's top arms negotiator warned on Thursday that a proposed U.S. system to shoot down missiles could neutralize Beijing's nuclear arsenal, presenting a serious threat that may force China to deploy more warheads. Sha Zukang, director of arms control and disarmament at China's Foreign Ministry, said other possible options to counter the deployment of a U.S. National Missile Defense could be to improve the accuracy of Chinese warheads or consider using countermeasures to overcome the missile shield.
'We cannot sit on our hands, watching our interests compromised, security interests compromised. Impossible.' - SHA ZUKANG China's top arms negotiator
SHA STRESSED that China, as a developing country, does not want to spend precious resources on ways to counter the proposed U.S. system. But he said Beijing could not merely rely on U.S. assurances that the missile shield would be aimed at protecting the United States from attack from smaller countries like North Korea that Washington considers rogue states.
"They have assured us it is not directed at China. For that we are grateful, we are happy. But China cannot base its security on assurances only," Sha said, speaking in English in a telephone interview.
If the United States goes ahead with the system, "we cannot sit on our hands, watching our interests compromised, security interests compromised. Impossible."
ANOTHER ARMS RACE
NBC's Chris Billing reported from Beijing that China's efforts to counter the U.S. missile defense system could set the stage for an arms race between Washington and Beijing - especially as Beijing seeks to maintain second-strike capability for its nuclear arsenal.
Eric Heginbotham, an MIT researcher specializing in the Chinese military, told NBC News that the missile defense system would put China's ability to launch an attack in danger, and could have a profound impact on China-U.S. relations. "It proves the point of the hard-liners that the United States is out to get China," Heginbotham said.
Sha's comments went further in their detail than previous Chinese statements, which have mainly warned that a U.S. missile shield could spark a costly and destabilizing arms race. China has also warned against including Taiwan, which Beijing regards as its territory, under a U.S. missile shield.
Sha said the system, which, if it works, would fire interceptors to shoot down incoming missiles, could "neutralize" China's "very small arsenal," estimated at 20 to 30 warheads.
The missile system "will have a serious effect and therefore it could affect China's security," he said. "I have been told we could have a series of options. One of the options can be maybe to increase the number of our warheads.
Opinion: Back to the nuclear future
"That increase certainly does not mean that China will participate in a nuclear arms race. But with this understanding, China could take this option to have more warheads."
Sha said no decision had been made. "Those are the last things we want to do. China is a developing country. We have still millions of people living under the poverty line," he said. "That's why we are strongly advising the Americans not to go ahead with this program. It's not in their interest. It's certainly not in China's interest. It's not in anybody's interest."
Sha also indicated that experts from China and Russia, which also opposes the proposal, are discussing possible techniques to overcome the missile shield.
"Our experts are working together, consulting with each other how to confront that situation," he said. He gave no details.
---
Chinese negotiator pans U.S. anti-missile plans
San Jose Mercury News
Thursday, May 11, 2000,
BY ERIK ECKHOLM New York Times
http://www7.mercurycenter.com/premium/world/docs/china11.htm
BEIJING -- China's chief arms negotiator said Wednesday that the U.S. proposal to build an anti-missile defensive shield posed an unacceptable threat to China's security and could force it to expand its own nuclear forces in response.
The Chinese find it hard to believe U.S. claims that the proposed ``national missile defense'' is only intended to counter threats from rogue states like North Korea, the official, Sha Zukang, said.
But whatever the intention, he said, the systems under discussion would destroy China's ability to deter nuclear attack by neutralizing its small force of nuclear missiles.
``Your system would be good enough to neutralize whatever offensive capacity we now have,'' Sha said, leaving China dangerously vulnerable to bullying or attack. If that appears likely, he said, ``We will not sit on our hands.''
``How can we base our own national security on your assurances of good will?'' said Sha, director-general of arms control in the Foreign Ministry.
Sha said a ``balance of terror'' had kept nuclear peace for decades and remained the only realistic course until such weapons are phased out. The U.S. missile-defense proposal, he said, would spark a new global arms race and possibly what he called a ``nightmare scenario'' of weapons proliferation.
Although the feasibility of a missile-defense shield is not yet proven, President Clinton is under pressure to decide soon whether to embark on a program costing tens of billions of dollars to develop and deploy a system of sensors, missiles and weapons that could destroy a small number of incoming missiles.
The proposal has been vehemently opposed by Russia, which like China fears the system would blunt its power and, like China, wants to avoid a costly arms race. In the debate in Washington, the Russian objections have received far greater attention than those from China, in part because deploying the defensive system would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty signed by the United States and the Soviet Union.
The Clinton administration has tried to persuade Russia to accept changes in the treaty that would permit a limited missile defense even as the two countries negotiate deeper, money-saving cuts in their huge nuclear arsenals.
U.S. officials have also sought to convince Russian military planners that the contemplated defensive system, while adequate to stop a few missiles from countries like Iraq or North Korea, could quickly be overwhelmed by Russia's missile forces.
But the Americans cannot make that argument convincingly to China. Since China developed nuclear weapons in the 1960s, it has avoided trying to match U.S. and Soviet arsenals, instead keeping a small fleet of missiles as a minimal deterrent, able to retaliate in the event of attack. Western experts believe that China has no more than about two dozen land-based missiles, with one warhead each, capable of reaching the continental United States, compared with the thousands of warheads the United States could deliver by land- or sea-based missiles or bombers.
In the interview Wednesday at the Foreign Ministry, Sha gave the most detailed public description yet of China's possible responses to the proposed missile defense.
``We'll have to do something'' if the plan proceeds, he said. The options, he said, include a significant increase in the number of nuclear warheads that China would field, improvements in the accuracy and other traits of warheads and the development of methods to destroy or frustrate the anti-missile shield.
He said China and Russia were discussing possible cooperation in developing techniques ``to restore strategic stability,'' including methods ``to defeat your system,'' but he declined to be more specific.
Sha described U.S. fears of nuclear attack from countries like North Korea or Iraq as ``ridiculous.'' He said China estimates that it will be at least 15 years before North Korea can develop a missile able to reach the United States. He said North Korea had no nuclear weapons and that strong diplomatic efforts can keep it that way.
``The U.S. is a huge superpower and you're afraid of little North Korea?'' he said. ``Is it convincing?'' What is more plausible, he said, is that ``American strategic thinkers may have China in mind'' as they promote the missile defenses.
---
China Says U.S. Missile Shield Could Force an Arms Buildup
New York Times
May 11, 2000
By ERIK ECKHOLM
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/global/051100china-us-missile.html
BEIJING, May 10 -- China's chief arms negotiator said today that the American proposal to build an antimissile defensive shield posed an unacceptable threat to China's security and could force Beijing to significantly expand its own nuclear forces in response.
The Chinese find it hard to believe American claims that the proposed "national missile defense" is intended only to counter threats from small "rogue" states like North Korea, said the official, Sha Zukang, in an interview. But whatever the intention, he said, the systems under discussion would destroy China's ability to deter nuclear attack by neutralizing its relatively small force of nuclear missiles.
That would leave China dangerously vulnerable to bullying or attack, said Mr. Sha, the Foreign Ministry's director general for arms control. If that appears likely, he added, "we will not sit on our hands."
Mr. Sha and other Chinese officials have frequently voiced their strong opposition to American missile defense plans, but in the interview today, Mr. Sha, who spoke in English, gave the most detailed public warning yet of China's possible military responses, ranging from producing more nuclear warheads to devising ways to undermine the American missile shield.
"How can we base our own national security on your assurances of good will?" he asked.
Mr. Sha said that a "balance of terror" had kept nuclear peace for decades and remained the only realistic course until such weapons are phased out. The American proposal, he said, would spark a new global arms race and possibly what he called a "nightmare scenario" of weapons proliferation.
Although the feasibility of a missile defense shield is not yet proved, President Clinton is under pressure to decide soon whether to embark on a crash program costing tens of billions of dollars to develop and deploy a system of sensors, missiles and futuristic weapons that could destroy a small number of incoming missiles.
The proposal has been vehemently opposed by Russia, which like China fears the system would blunt its power and, like China, wants to avoid a costly arms race. In the debate in Washington so far, the Russian objections have received far greater attention than those from China, in part because deploying the defensive system would violate the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty signed by the United States and the Soviet Union.
The Clinton administration has tried to persuade Russia to accept changes in the treaty that would permit a limited missile defense even as the two countries negotiate deeper, money-saving cuts in their huge nuclear arsenals.
American officials have also sought to convince Russian military planners that the defensive system contemplated, while adequate to stop a few missiles from a nation like Iraq or North Korea, could quickly be overwhelmed by Russia's missile forces.
But the Americans cannot make that argument convincingly to China. Since China developed nuclear weapons in the 1960's, it has avoided trying to match American and Soviet arsenals, instead keeping a small number of missiles as a minimal deterrent, able to retaliate in the event of attack. Western experts believe that China has no more than about two dozen land-based missiles, with one warhead each, capable of reaching the continental United States -- compared with thousands of warheads the United States could deliver by land- or sea-based missiles or bombers.
American officials have not said how, in the event the missile defense plan goes ahead, they will deal with Beijing's objections or any major changes in its nuclear forces.
In Washington, a State Department spokesman restated today the American position that national missile defense is not directed against China, but rather against the threat from countries with developing or potential missile programs, like North Korea, Iran and Iraq.
"We've held meetings with the People's Republic of China," said the spokesman, Philip Reeker. "They have expressed their concerns. We will continue our dialogue and efforts to explain the basis for any decision to deploy national missile defense."
Western intelligence agencies say that China is already developing newer, mobile ballistic missiles and improved warheads, but that they do not know whether it already plans a major expansion of forces.
If the American missile defense plan proceeds, Mr. Sha said, "We'll have to do something." The options, he said, include a significant increase in the number of nuclear warheads that China would field, improvements in the accuracy and other traits of warheads, and the development of methods to destroy or frustrate the missile shield.
He said that China and Russia were discussing possible cooperation in developing techniques "to restore strategic stability," including methods "to defeat your system," but he declined to be more specific.
"To defeat your defenses we'll have to spend a lot of money, and we don't want to do this," Mr. Sha said, adding that China's greater priority is economic development. "But otherwise, the United States will feel it can attack anyone at any time, and that isn't tolerable."
China's equally fervent opposition to American and Japanese research on a "theater missile defense" for East Asia, which China fears might be extended to protect Taiwan, the island it views as a breakaway province, has received considerable attention among Western military experts.
Less widely understood, Mr. Sha said, is that an advanced missile defense in Asia would also serve as a forward line for the continental defensive shield. Putting long-range radars and other advanced devices in East Asia would give the United States the ability to detect and destroy Russian or Chinese missiles as they were launched, he said.
"So this theater missile defense could be even more dangerous for Russia and China than the national missile defense," he said.
Mr. Sha described American fears of nuclear attack from countries like North Korea and Iraq as "ridiculous." He said China estimates that it will be at least 15 years before North Korea can develop a missile able to reach the United States. He said that North Korea has no nuclear weapons and that strong diplomatic efforts can keep it that way -- and that in any case, North Korea would never launch an attack while it faces the certainty of massive retaliation.
"The U.S. is a huge superpower and you're afraid of little North Korea?" he said. "Is it convincing?" What is more plausible, he said, is that "American strategic thinkers may have China in mind" as they promote the missile defenses.
Mr. Sha noted that even Washington's European allies are against the apparent American effort to insulate itself from nuclear dangers, fearing it could divide the alliance. "Not a single significant country in the world supports this plan," he said.
"We hope you'll give this up," Mr. Sha said. "If not, we'll be ready."
---
What foreign policy subtleties?
Washington Times
May 11, 2000
Amos Perlmutter
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/commentary-2000511162951.htm
With President Bush, the world of bipolarity came to an end. President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore represent the first American administration in the age of multipolarity, and it was incumbent upon them to design an American foreign policy in a post-Cold War era.
Mr. Clinton prefers an ad-hoc foreign policy, devoid of strategic vision. His foreign policy is a combination of contradictory and incomplete strategic and tactical aspirations. He emphasizes a "humanitarian" foreign policy that at times contradicts America's national interest and confuses friends and foes. Political capital has been spent at the peripheries: Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti. He has obsessively pursued an unrealistic non-proliferation policy. Al Gore is a legatee of the Clinton-Gore policy.
What about George W. Bush? Having no experience or profound knowledge of international politics and foreign policy, he is dependent upon excellent, experienced advisers who played important roles in the Reagan and Bush administrations.
I will single out George W. Bush's principal foreign policy adviser, Condeleezza Rice, who, in her article in the Jan.-Feb. 2000 Foreign Affairs, outlined the principals of the Bush foreign policy. Miss Rice calls for "a disciplined and consistent foreign policy that separates the important from the trivial."
Miss Rice suggests the Bush administration will not follow Mr. Clinton's neo-Wilsonian concept of the national interest, and will not replace it with "humanitarian" interests - as she defines it, the interest of the "international community." "Humanitarian intervention cannot be ruled out a priori," she writes. "But a decision to intervene in the absence of strategic concerns should be understood for what it is."
A Republican administration will consider the primacy of national over other interests. Not that prosperity, democracy and human values are of no significance. But these issues will be subordinate if and when they clash with national interests. Miss Rice is setting Republican foreign policy priorities: ensuring America's military ability to project power; promoting economic growth and political openness by extending free trade; renewing strong and intimate relationships with allies who share American values; focusing U.S. energy on comprehensive relationships with big powers, particularly Russia and China; and finally, dealing decisively with the threat of rogue regimes. With the exception of strengthening American military power, there is no strategic difference between these goals and those championed by Clinton-Gore.
Tactically, maybe the Bush administration will do better than Mr. Clinton's. The difference between the two is tactical.
Dealing with the powerful would be the goal of both Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush. Miss Rice speaks of U.S. interest in shaping European defense identity - "welcoming a greater European military capability as long as it is within the context of NATO." This is already being fulfilled by the Clinton-Gore administration. When it comes to China, Miss Rice believes in the need to "strengthen the hands of those who seek economic integration." Yet, at the same time, she defends the one-China policy. She speaks of China as a future power in Asia that could, "alter Asia's balance of power in its own favor. That alone makes it a strategic competitor, not the 'strategic partner the Clinton administration once called it.' " The difference between "strategic partner" and "strategic competitor" is rhetorical.
Miss Rice considers the longstanding U.S. commitment to the one-China policy "wise," and says that U.S. policy toward China "requires nuance and balance." How will the Bush administration reconcile House Republican support for the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, and at the same time conduct a nuanced and balanced policy with China? What will the Bush administration do in times of serious crisis in the Taiwan Straits? Presidents are judged by results, not rhetoric. Will the Bush administration challenge China if it renews its charges against independent Taiwan? There is no guarantee Taiwan and the People's Republic of China will not come to a serious confrontation that will behoove American intervention.
Rhetorically, there appears to be a gap between "strategic partnership" and "strategic competitor," but in the event of a confrontation there will be very little difference between the response of a Gore administration and a Bush administration. The United States cannot escape its responsibility to a democratic Taiwan. When it comes to Russia, it is certainly important to concentrate on a "security agenda." Miss Rice speaks of a need to modify the ABM Treaty, which she correctly identifies as a "relic." It is almost 30 years old and represents a "profoundly adversarial relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union," which no longer exists. Miss Rice also is correctly concerned with rogue nuclear threats from the "Iraqs and North Koreas." However, the issue of amending or revoking the ABM Treaty should not be tied to nuclear threats from the rogue states, but to threats from the great powers.
If Miss Rice's Foreign Affairs article represents the foreign policy of George W. Bush, then the differences between Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush are tactical, and only rhetorically significant. The policy of the candidates toward the major rivals of the U.S., China and Russia, is hardly strategic. Miss Rice recognizes that "Russia is a great power." So does Vice President Gore. Only a confrontation between Taiwan and the PRC will demonstrate the difference between Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore, if there is any. Now that Saddam Hussein's Iraq is guaranteed to become a nuclear power, will Mr. Bush adopt "a disciplined and consistent foreign policy" when it comes to Iraq?
It may be that a post-Cold War, multipolar international system abhors consistency. It is true that the Clinton-Gore administration did not apply itself successfully to the management of American foreign policy. But can a disciplined Bush administration adapt itself to the multipolar international system?
Amos Perlmutter is a professor of political science and sociology at American University and editor of the Journal of Strategic Studies
-------- colombia
U.S. sends Colombia 'unsafe' shells from '52
Washington Times
May 11, 2000
By Jerry Seper THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://208.246.212.80/world/default-2000511225220.htm
The State Department sent 17 million rounds of nearly half-century-old ammunition to Colombia to use in machine guns on Black Hawk helicopters as part of the drug war despite warnings the rounds were unsafe and could injure those who fired them.
The 50-caliber ammunition was manufactured in 1952 for the Korean War, but was forwarded earlier this year to Colombian National Police (CNP) for use in the GAU-19/A Gatling guns aboard more than two dozen Black Hawk helicopters given to that government as part of its drug-eradication program.
The ammunition, according to government records, was approved by the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement despite a written warning by the manufacturer of the Gatling guns, General Dynamic Armament Systems, that 50-caliber ammunition made prior to 1983 "is suspect and should not be used in the GAU-19/A machine gun."
General Dynamics' technical manual, under the heading "WARNING," said the deterioration of the outdated ammunition could result in lower muzzle velocity and increase action time resulting in "hang fires" that could result in "possible injury to personnel as well as affecting performance and reliability."
The manual said only 50-caliber ammunition made after 1983 should be used "in order to maintain gun performance and reliability." The ammunition was manufactured by Twin Cities Arsenal and sent by the government to Colombia in boxes bearing an Aug. 20, 1952, date.
Its delivery came at a time the U.S. government is looking to provide up to $1.2 billion in economic and military aid to Colombia for the years 2000 to 2002. The Andean nation is the world's top supplier of cocaine and is fast gaining a large slice of the heroin market.
The aid package would assist the Colombian government to win back some of the more than 30 percent of the country held by the rebel Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known by the Spanish acronym FARC. The regions under FARC control, mostly in southern Colombia, supply most of the cocaine and much of the heroin flowing into the United States.
The outdated ammunition was discovered by investigators for the House Government Reform Committee, who visited Colombia last month. Investigators questioned the reliability of the 48-year-old ammunition and, according to records, were told at an April 20 briefing it would not be dangerous if those who used it fired it at a slower rate - about half its maximum rate of fire.
But Rep. Dan Burton, Indiana Republican and committee chairman, questioned those claims in a letter yesterday to Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, saying General Dynamics told investigators that slowing the rate of fire "would not eliminate the problems associated with the outdated ammunition."
Mr. Burton said the firm had decided that ammunition manufactured before 1983 "should not be used, even for training purposes, for the same reasons it cannot be used during combat." He said the U.S. Army has forbidden the use of 50-caliber ammunition manufactured before 1983 for its GAU-19/A guns.
"My principal concerns are for the safety of our long-standing allies, the CNP, and the effective prosecution of the battle against Colombian narcoterrorists," Mr. Burton said. "The provision of grossly outdated ammunition seems to do little to further either objective.
"International drug trafficking from Colombia and the rest of the Andean region is one of the most serious national security threats we face as a nation," he said. "Any effort to eliminate this threat on the cheap is penny-wise and pound-foolish. We cannot expect the Colombian government to wage a winning battle against heavily armed narcoterrorists if we are going to supply them with unsafe and useless 50-year-old ammunition."
State Department spokesman Martha Duckett said the department had not yet seen the Burton letter and could not comment on the propriety of the ammunition until it had a chance to review the letter.
Officials at the Colombian Embassy in Washington did not return calls for comment.
The delivery of the ammunition was not, however, the first time that outdated or dilapidated material for the war on drugs had been sent to Colombia. Last year, Colombia rejected a U.S. donation of 18 Vietnam-era trucks because they were so broken-down it would have cost almost as much to fix them as to buy new ones.
Colombian officials waited for months for the trucks to transport troops into mountain jungles to eradicate drug plantations and processing labs. But when the 2.5-ton trucks arrived in October 1999, the officials found that the bodies were gnawed by rust, the batteries were corroded and the engine models were so old the Colombian army had stopped using them a decade ago.
The trucks, destined for use in steamy jungles, came with heaters and ignition systems made to withstand subzero temperatures.
-------- france
French visit
Washington Times
May 11, 2000
Embassy Row James Morrison
http://www.washtimes.com/world/embassy-2000511234028.htm
French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine arrives here today for talks with Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright on "all the main current issues," a French government spokesman said yesterday.
They are expected to discuss the Middle East peace process, nuclear disarmament and the situations in Russia and Kosovo, the spokesman said.
"This important visit is part of the highly developed contacts between France and the United States. As you know, the minister and Mrs. Albright are in contact all the time," he said.
The visit comes a month before France takes over the rotating presidency of the European Union.
On his two-day visit, Mr. Vedrine will also hold talks with National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger and members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
-------- imf / world bank
USA Today
05/11/00
http://usatoday.com/news/states/dcmain.htm
D.C. A U.S. Senate panel has agreed to reimburse police in the nation's capital for security during last month's World Bank and International Monetary Fund protests. The Appropriations Committee agreed to the district's entire $4 million request, largely to cover overtime costs. The bill goes to the full Senate .
-------- india / pakistan
Mumbai (Bombay) Citizens Protested on 11th May
From: Harsh Kapoor - aiindex@mnet.fr
Two years back on 11th and 13th May, as a grand move to radically advance their politics of 'hatred and aggression', the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) - the parliamentary and mass political wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak sangh (RSS), committed to establish a fascistic 'Hindu' nation-state by displacing the present Indian nation-state, which came into being as the culmination of more than a half century long epic anti-colonial liberation struggles founded upon democratic and pluralistic values - as the leader of the less than two months old coalition government at the centre carried out a series of five nuclear explosions in the Pokhran deserts of Rajasthan.. On its second anniversary, the peace activists of Mumbai (Bombay) again came out on the streets, as they are doing repeatedly for the last two years, to register their protest against and moral outrage at this fiendish drive to nuclearise the Indo-Pak subcontinent.
A highly spirited protest demonstration was held at the city-centre, near the Churchgate railway station, which is the hub of India's commercial capital. They displayed placards with messages of peace and denunciation of war. Leaflets were distributed in large numbers highlighting the volcanic situation where the whole of Indo-Pak subcontinent has been dragged into by the nuclear explosions at Pokhran, which triggered off a vortex of arms race and conflict between neighbouring India and Pakistan, and the consequent urgent need for moving towards regional peace talks and concrete steps towards de-nuclearisation. The nuclear weapons states also came in for heavy criticism and were called upon to shed their hypocrisy and immediately move towards global nuclear disarmament. The protest was very well received by the common people.
Sukla Sen,Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament (MIND), Mumbai.
The text of the leaflet distributed is reproduced below : Call of May 11th We Want Bread not Bombs! We Need Life not Death! The Blasts!
On this day of 11th May - two years back in 1998, the Prime Minister of India proudly claimed, on behalf of his less than two months old government, to have carried out three nuclear explosions, for explicitly military purposes, in the Pokhran deserts of Rajasthan. Two days later followed the claim of another two.
The blasts were followed by talks of erecting a grand Shakti Peeth temple at Pokhran, celebration of Shaurya Divas on 16th May, pro-active actions in Kashmir including 'hot-pursuit' , challenge to Pakistan to announce the date and time of the next war, and so on and so forth.
South Asia - the most dangerous Hotspot But the euphoria was too short-lived. The spine-chilling implications and consequences of a nuclear arms race triggered off by Pokhran, however, did not take much time to surface.
Just about a fortnight after, Pakistan evened the score by claiming to have carried out six blasts on the following 28th and 30th in the Chagai hills of Baluchistan. and the accompanying missile development programme by both the neighbouring countries brought out in sharp and gory relief that the quest for security through possession and development of nuclear arms is only an act of self-delusion and actually makes life immeasurably more vulnerable and insecure.
Even before a year was over, belying all tall claims of heightened security and all that, there was a border war on our hand caused by massive intrusion from across the Line of Control in Kashmir. And last time any such thing happened was way back in 1965. Evidently, Pokhran led to Chagai, and Chagai led to Kargil. The limited and undeclared war dragged on for about two and half months dangerously threatening to turn into a full-scale one.
Recent reports in the press that Pakistani nuclear-tipped missiles are ready to hit Indian cities and Indian preparations in this area are more or less at similar level only underscore the fact we are virtually sitting on a volcano ready to explode. The recent declaration of our Defence Minister that 'nuclear deterrent' deters only nuclear war and not 'conventional' war, and the grim-faced assertion of our Prime Minister, which promptly followed, that any nuclear attack from Pakistan will be massively retaliated are nothing but the rumblings of this volcano sending out ominous warning signals.
Tasks Ahead Against this horrifying background, we call upon the citizens of Mumbai to urge the Indian (and Pakistani) government to engage in serious peace talks with the neighbour; as a confidence building measure cry an immediate halt to further development of the nuclear weapons and the delivery systems; and eventually move towards de-nuclearisation of South Asia.
We also urge all the nuclear weapon states to shed their hypocrisy and take concrete and time-bound measures towards global disarmament and de-nuclearisation. This is the only way to save our Mother Earth! This is the only way to escape nuclear holocaust!
Issued by Citizens' Committee for Commemoration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Mumbai in public interest. (Published by Dr. Uday Mehta, Convenor EKTA, Committee for Communal Amity, Santacruz (W), Mumbai)
----
India-Pakistan-The Bomb
By SCOTT NEUMAN
Associated Press
05/11 0105
UNITED NATIONS - The muted rumble that heaved plumes of dust into the air in a remote patch of Indian desert two years ago also sent political shock waves around the world.
With its nuclear weapons tests on May 11, 1998, India became an uninvited member of an elite club of nations that had openly wielded the bomb. By the end of the same month, India's rival Pakistan had also knocked loudly on the clubhouse door with its own underground nuclear explosions.
But the consensus among defense and disarmament analysts is that a full-blown nuclear arms race in South Asia has yet to materialize. Despite bitter tensions over the disputed territory of Kashmir, which nearly pushed India and Pakistan into a fourth war last year, the two countries "have not moved very far or in any significant fashion" to field nuclear weapons, said Stephen Cohen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Cohen, a former State Department official and presidential adviser on South Asian affairs, said technical difficulties, disagreements over control of the weapons, inadequate early warning systems and political considerations all may have slowed the deployment of nuclear-armed air and missile forces.
"Both countries have very weak command-and-control structures when it comes to nuclear weapons and also fairly bad intelligence generally," he said. "I think there are very strong military incentives not to deploy to a hair-trigger stance."
There also is the issue of control. In India, a centralized command under the civilian government will almost certainly call the shots, Cohen said. In smaller Pakistan, however, fears that military and political structures would be overwhelmed in a first strike could lead to the delegation of authority to local commanders -- a potentially dangerous scenario given the possibility of false warnings and the extremely limited response time.
During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union enjoyed the luxury of as much as an hour to verify a nuclear strike, but because of missile flight times between targets in India and Pakistan, "these guys have only about three minutes or 30 seconds," Cohen said.
For safety reasons, the region's delivery systems -- aircraft and missiles -- are most likely being kept in different locations than the bombs themselves, said P.R. Chari, the director of the New Delhi-based Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.
"But of course, they could be brought together very quickly," he added.
Both nations have ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons, but many analysts believe Indian and Pakistani scientists are still struggling to produce suitable nuclear warheads for them -- a more complex task than simply building a Hiroshima-type bomb.
"For the moment, we are talking only about air-dropped weapons," said A. Nayyar, a physicist at Islamabad's Qaid-e-Azam University. "Although the weapon-makers have said that nuclear warheads have been mated with missiles, it seems unlikely at this point."
Cohen said in the case of India, "there's no evidence of a functioning missile delivery force. It's still largely on paper and several years down the road."
Following India's 1998 nuclear test -- its first since 1974 -- the United States moved quickly to condemn the action and lobbied hard to prevent Pakistan from following suit.
But since the explosions, political factors have played a key role in restraining an unbridled exuberance for deployment, especially in India. Having become "deeply engaged" with Washington, New Delhi has probably decided "it's worth going slow on weapons development" Cohen said.
India has pledged "no first use" and says it wants only enough weapons for a "minimum deterrence" against a possible Pakistani or Chinese first strike. Pakistan has declined to rule out first use and says it needs the bomb to offset India's superior nuclear and conventional forces.
Both have steadfastly refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, designed to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. At the United Nations, where the treaty is under review, Undersecretary-General for Disarmament Jayantha Dhanapala expressed hope that if the two countries haven't yet deployed that "in this interim period ... the international community can have an effect on these decisions."
But the situation may be only a small window of opportunity for mature nuclear states to usher India and Pakistan safely into their club. With relations between the two antagonists at their worst in decades, fighting in Kashmir threatens to ignite wider hostilities.
"Nobody's going to wake up and say 'Let's go nuke 'em,'" cautions George Perkovich, director of the Secure World Program at the W. Alton Jones Foundation and author of "India's Nuclear Bomb."
"What you have to worry about is that they have another kind of conflict and it escalates," he said.
----
India marks nuke anniversary, says it's stronger
May 11 2000
Reuters
NEW DELHI, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee said on Thursday India was a stronger nation two years after it carried out a stunning series of nuclear explosions.
Vajpayee said India's nuclear programme was "defensive in nature" and the world had a better appreciation of the imperatives that led to the 1998 atomic tests.
"There was much criticism from some global powers at the time but the situation has changed dramatically in two years," he told lawmakers of his coalition government gathered to mark the second anniversary of the tests done in the Pokharan desert.
"Today almost the entire world has a better appreciation of our action," he said.
India cited regional threat perceptions in explaining its first set of nuclear tests in nearly a quarter century. Arch-rival Pakistan answered with tests of its own, prompting global outrage and sanctions on both countries.
Vajpayee said his government was aware of Pakistan's plans. "...We had full knowledge that had India not conducted nuclear tests in May 1998, our neighbour would have certainly done so."
Tensions between the regional nuclear rivals have steadily risen and last year they came to the brink of their third war over the bitterly disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir.
Vajpayee said sanctions had failed. "After two years India is recognised, both internally and externally, as a much strong nation. There is a new wave of pride and self-confidence among our people."
He said India was committed to a minimum nuclear deterrent but would work for world disarmament.
"On this occasion, I assure the international community that even as we retain our minimum credible nuclear deterrent, we shall continue to vigorously strive for global disarmament.
India has consistently avoided global non-proliferation accords, saying these discriminate in favour of the five main nuclear weapons states while denying others access to such arms.
The United States, Russia, Britain, France and India's giant neighbour China are recognised as legitimate nuclear powers.
"It is extremely disheartening in the past two years (that) the established nuclear powers have not moved in the direction of disarmament," Vajpayee said.
----
India, Pakistan Show Nuke Restraint
Associated Press
May 11, 2000
By The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-India-Pakistan-The-Bomb.html
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The muted rumble that heaved plumes of dust into the air in a remote patch of Indian desert two years ago also sent political shock waves around the world.
With its nuclear weapons tests on May 11, 1998, India became an uninvited member of an elite club of nations that had openly wielded the bomb. By the end of the same month, India's rival Pakistan had also knocked loudly on the clubhouse door with its own underground nuclear explosions.
But the consensus among defense and disarmament analysts is that a full-blown nuclear arms race in South Asia has yet to materialize. Despite bitter tensions over the disputed territory of Kashmir, which nearly pushed India and Pakistan into a fourth war last year, the two countries ``have not moved very far or in any significant fashion'' to field nuclear weapons, said Stephen Cohen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Cohen, a former State Department official and presidential adviser on South Asian affairs, said technical difficulties, disagreements over control of the weapons, inadequate early warning systems and political considerations all may have slowed the deployment of nuclear-armed air and missile forces.
``Both countries have very weak command-and-control structures when it comes to nuclear weapons and also fairly bad intelligence generally,'' he said. ``I think there are very strong military incentives not to deploy to a hair-trigger stance.''
There also is the issue of control. In India, a centralized command under the civilian government will almost certainly call the shots, Cohen said. In smaller Pakistan, however, fears that military and political structures would be overwhelmed in a first strike could lead to the delegation of authority to local commanders -- a potentially dangerous scenario given the possibility of false warnings and the extremely limited response time.
During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union enjoyed the luxury of as much as an hour to verify a nuclear strike, but because of missile flight times between targets in India and Pakistan, ``these guys have only about three minutes or 30 seconds,'' Cohen said.
For safety reasons, the region's delivery systems -- aircraft and missiles -- are most likely being kept in different locations than the bombs themselves, said P.R. Chari, the director of the New Delhi-based Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.
``But of course, they could be brought together very quickly,'' he added.
Both nations have ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons, but many analysts believe Indian and Pakistani scientists are still struggling to produce suitable nuclear warheads for them -- a more complex task than simply building a Hiroshima-type bomb.
``For the moment, we are talking only about air-dropped weapons,'' said A. Nayyar, a physicist at Islamabad's Qaid-e-Azam University. ``Although the weapon-makers have said that nuclear warheads have been mated with missiles, it seems unlikely at this point.''
Cohen said in the case of India, ``there's no evidence of a functioning missile delivery force. It's still largely on paper and several years down the road.''
Following India's 1998 nuclear test -- its first since 1974 -- the United States moved quickly to condemn the action and lobbied hard to prevent Pakistan from following suit.
But since the explosions, political factors have played a key role in restraining an unbridled exuberance for deployment, especially in India. Having become ``deeply engaged'' with Washington, New Delhi has probably decided ``it's worth going slow on weapons development'' Cohen said.
India has pledged ``no first use'' and says it wants only enough weapons for a ``minimum deterrence'' against a possible Pakistani or Chinese first strike. Pakistan has declined to rule out first use and says it needs the bomb to offset India's superior nuclear and conventional forces.
Both have steadfastly refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, designed to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. At the United Nations, where the treaty is under review, Undersecretary-General for Disarmament Jayantha Dhanapala expressed hope that if the two countries haven't yet deployed that ``in this interim period ... the international community can have an effect on these decisions.''
But the situation may be only a small window of opportunity for mature nuclear states to usher India and Pakistan safely into their club. With relations between the two antagonists at their worst in decades, fighting in Kashmir threatens to ignite wider hostilities.
``Nobody's going to wake up and say 'Let's go nuke 'em,''' cautions George Perkovich, director of the Secure World Program at the W. Alton Jones Foundation and author of ``India's Nuclear Bomb.''
``What you have to worry about is that they have another kind of conflict and it escalates,'' he said.
On the Net: Brookings Institution: http://www.brookings.org
W. Alton Jones Foundation: http://www.wajones.org
Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies: http://www.ipcs.org
-------- israel
Israel Singled Out By UN Statement
Associated Press
May 9, 2000 Filed at 10:06 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-UN-Nuclear-Treaty.html
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- A draft statement prepared by a U.N. conference on nuclear disarmament has singled out Israel for being the only country in the Middle East that hasn't signed onto the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
The draft, which is still subject to revision before the conference wraps up next week, also notes that subcontinental neighbors India and Pakistan, which conducted nuclear tests in 1998, haven't signed and urges them to do so.
The statement would be one of the final statements from the conference reviewing implementation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which requires nuclear powers to work toward disarmament while forbidding non-nuclear countries from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Israel, India and Pakistan have come under intense criticism at the conference for having failed to sign the treaty despite having nuclear capabilities. Cuba is the only other country that hasn't signed.
Egypt has led the effort to single out Israel as the only country in the region that hasn't committed itself to the treaty, which requires countries to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect their nuclear facilities to make sure they are being used for peaceful purposes.
The United States managed to head off direct criticism of Israel at the last treaty review conference in 1995 -- primarily because there were other countries in the region that still hadn't signed the treaty.
But the United States was unable to do the same this time around and appears to have conceded that it couldn't prevent Israel from being named if it wanted to single out India and Pakistan for their nuclear weapons tests.
U.S. officials have only said they wanted a ``fair and balanced'' resolution that mentioned not only the countries that haven't signed the treaty but those that have signed and aren't abiding by it.
Iraq and North Korea are both mentioned in the draft as having failed to give the IAEA complete access to its suspected nuclear facilities.
Regarding India and Pakistan, the draft calls on both countries to sign onto the treaty and refuses to acknowledge that they are ``nuclear powers.''
Israel has neither confirmed nor denied it possesses nuclear arms, saying the mystery serves as a deterrent. Israel says it wants to work out issues of nuclear disarmament -- as well as disarmament of weapons of mass destruction -- regionally.
The draft statement notes that all countries in the Middle East have signed the treaty except Israel, urges Israel to follow suit and ``without further delay, to place all its nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards.''
It says the conference had agreed to appoint a special representative to urge Israel to join the treaty and to report on progress before 2005.
-------- japan
Japanese Police Raid Greenpeace Ship and Office
May 11, 2000 (ENS)
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/may2000/2000L-05-11-01.html
TOKYO, Japan, The Greenpeace vessel Rainbow Warrior and the Greenpeace office in Tokyo were raided this morning by the Japanese Police seeking evidence against the four Greenpeace activists arrested on Tuesday.
Three men and one woman are still in police custody after they climbed the building next to the tower of the world's tallest incinerator complex in Toshima Ward, Tokyo, and hung a banner demanding an end to waste incineration.
Greenpeace climber scales the Health Plaza Toshima to hang a banner reading "Incineration is coming first. Safety is coming second. Tokyo - Dioxin Capital." (Photos courtesy Greenpeace International)
Detention of the four activists, Al Baker of the United Kingdom, Marleen van Poeck of Belgium, Clement Lam of Hong Kong and Canada and Paul Schot of the Netherlands now continues for the third day. Today it was announced that the activists will be detained without charge for at least a further ten days.
Police told reporters that five officers searched the group's office. There they seized public leaflets containing information on the problems of toxic emissions into the environment, Greenpeace said.
Another 30 police went through the Rainbow Warrior, docked at Tokyo's Harumi wharf.
Japanese police raid the Rainbow Warrior this morning.
The police searched the ship thoroughly, including the computer data, the ship's logbook and the crew's personal belongings. No new arrests were made. The raid lasted over nine hours and resulted in the confiscation of the ship's property, including the ship's logbook.
Greenpeace alleges that the Japanese Government violated international law by refusing the Dutch Consul access to the crew of the Rainbow Warrior during police investigations. The Rainbow Warrior is flagged in the Netherlands where the headquarters of Greenpeace International is located.
The Greenpeace lawyer in Japan arrived on the raid scene, but was denied access to the wharf by the Japanese police. The ship's captain, Joel Stewart, called for assistance from the Dutch Embassy in Tokyo, but the embassy official's attempts to visit the ship were cut short by police.
Failure to allow access of the embassy officials is a violation of Articles 5 and 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
"We are appalled by this overreaction from the Japanese authorities. This police action against Greenpeace is totally unwarranted and too heavy-handed. Our protest was non-violent and should not have been met with these repressive acts," said Stewart. "We will not allow these measures to interfere with our right to peacefully protest against damaging the environment."
Japanese police remove Greenpeace property from the Rainbow Warrior.
"If every public protest continues to be met with such a strong reaction from the police and from the government in Japan, there is a real danger that it prevents the public from demanding accountability for crimes committed against the environment," said Sanae Shida, executive director of Greenpeace Japan.
The international environmental group emphasized that the action it carried out was intended to highlight both local and global environmental and health implications of burning waste - particularly in areas where the incinerators are located.
Japan has the highest levels of dioxin emissions in the world today, as a consequence of having more waste incinerators than any other country in the world.
Dioxins are toxic substances created during the incineration process. They are linked to liver cancer and birth defects.
-------- puerto rico
Caribbean Whale Strandings Linked to Navy Activities
By Susan Soltero
May 11, 2000 (ENS)
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/may2000/2000L-05-11-07.html
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico, As the U.S. Navy resumes bomb training on the sleepy island of Vieques, a lone, apparently healthy, 15 foot male goosebeak whale has been found dead on the shore near the lighthouse of the small Caribbean island.
The Caribbean Stranding Network is studying whether there is any correlation between this death, other Caribbean whale deaths and Navy practices in the area.
A beached goosebeak whale somewhere in the Caribbean (Photo courtesy Laboratorio de Mamíferos Marinos del Caribe)
Goosebeak whales are common in the waters off Puerto Rico, and two or three of the toothed whales strand in the Caribbean each year. Goosebeaks are one of more than 27 species of marine mammals that live in these waters. Some, like the humpback whale, make their way to the warm Caribbean waters in the winter to mate and breed. Others, like the highly endangered manatee and the goosebeak whale, live there year round.
"This species is particularly sensitive to low frequency sounds," says Dr. Antonio Mignucci, scientific coordinator of the Caribbean Stranding Network and oceanography professor at San Juan's Universidad Metropolitana. The same species was recently involved in a mass stranding of whales and dolphins in the Bahamas which has been linked to U.S. Navy practices nearby.
Low Frequency Active (LFA) sonar being tested and used by the Navy is suspected as a contributing cause in stranding events of beaked whales in Greece and the Canary Islands some years ago.
The Navy maintains its LFA sonar is harmless.
A goosebeak whale stranded off Vieques south coast in January 1998. Five goosebeaks stranded alive in Aguadilla, off Puerto Rico's northwest coast in July 1998, and four stranded alive in St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix in October 1999.
"We are closely investigating the events and causes of death," said Mignucci. "We conducted the necropsies and have sent samples to be tested for pathology and toxicology to the National Marine Fisheries Service's Laboratory in Miami. We have also collected the head of the whale for a study with Dr. Darlene Ketten of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute to assess if any damage is evident on the whales ear canals and tympanic bones. It will take a month before we get the results back."
A Navy diver in the water during a SURTASS test (Photo courtesy U.S. Navy)
Opponents of the use of LFA sonar say it adversely affects all marine mammals, causing disorientation and acute stress and shock, and panic speed swimming, which ultimately causes the whales to strand.
Protests have been held in Hawaii over the use of the LFA sonar where it has been tested for the past several years.
Critics say that the sonar "sounds" like ten 747 airplanes taking off underwater, which disorients marine mammals that use biosonar to navigate and find food.
At a news conference in Washington, DC on Wednesday, environmental and animal welfare organizations and marine scientists presented evidence linking the mass stranding of whales and dolphins in the Bahamas in March to the U.S. Navy use of active sonar devices in the area.
Representatives of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Whale Research, the Ocean Mammal Institute and the Humane Society of the United States called for the suspension of further development, testing and deployment of LFA sonar, which they call a particularly dangerous and far reaching active sonar technology.
Environmentalists fear the new sonar system could threaten all marine species, including beluga whales (Photo courtesy Natural Resources Defense Council)
In a joint statement the organizations claimed that the Navy's LFA sonar emits noise so loud it "can destroy the vital organs and tissue of marine mammals." Its potential for deafening, disorienting and disturbing marine mammals over a wide area is considerable, the groups said.
"Other active sonar devices, such as those used in the Bahamas, emit sounds in mid-range frequencies that may be particularly dangerous for beaked whale species, the type that stranded in the greatest numbers in the Bahamas incident," they said.
"The Navy is turning a blind eye to the evidence that its sonar technologies are posing a direct threat to marine life," the groups said.
Dr. Charles Bernard, a retired U.S. Navy military expert, also spoke out Wednesday against the use of LFA sonar.
Further Navy testing involving active sonar of the type used in the Bahamas is scheduled along the east coast of the U.S. this summer. A Navy sponsored research project involving low frequency sounds and their effect on whales is planned off the Azores this summer.
The groups called for a halt to the East Coast testing plans until a complete and thorough investigation into the Bahamas incident is completed and evaluated by the scientific and environmental communities.
Bomb on Vieques shore (Photo courtesy Vieques, PR, a U.S. War Zone)
The return of the U.S. Navy to Vieques, after the removal and arrest of 230 anti-military protesters, means increased military presence in local waters. Navy submarines are frequently seen near Vieques and the Navy uses a submarine range near St. Croix for training exercises.
Puerto Ricans engaged in civil disobedience to protest the Navy's presence and practices in Vieques say the death of this goosebeak whale will be used as ammunition to prevent use of the island for live ordinance training exercises.
-------- russia
Russia's Missile Connection With Iran
Scientist Is Unrepentant About His Role in Training Students in Rocketry
International Herald Tribune
Paris, Thursday, May 11, 2000
By Patrick E. Tyler
New York Times Service
http://www.iht.com/IHT/TODAY/THU/FPAGE/rockets.2.html
ST. PETERSBURG - One of Russia's leading missile scientists, Yuri Savelyev, was always more than willing to teach advanced rocket-building to Iranian engineers, who are said to be working on missiles that will be able to reach most Middle Eastern capitals, and even Alaska.
When Russian government officials tried to stop him four years ago because Moscow had signed an international agreement to control the spread of ballistic missile technology, he persisted.
As the rector of the famous Baltic State Technical University, Mr. Savelyev developed a program to teach students from a leading Iranian university courses in advanced physics, metallurgy and the behavior of gases and fluids under high pressure and temperature - all disciplines essential to building rockets.
This was done, he said, with the full knowledge of the Russian Defense Ministry and the national intelligence agency, the Federal Security Service, of which Mr. Savelyev's deputy is a member.
Then in February, after complaints from the Clinton administration, Mr. Savelyev was ordered to shut down the program. He was summoned to Moscow by the Ministry of Education, where he was reprimanded and threatened with dismissal for concealing the educational program that was under way both here and in Iran.
''I really have big problems,'' he said, seated near a display cabinet where he keeps a portrait of Iran's late spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. ''I now have as my antagonists the Russian government and the American government, and I think one way or the other, they will find a way to fire me from the post of rector.''
As concerns mount in the United States and Israel that Iran's secretive missile and nuclear weapons programs could pose new threats in the region, the case of Mr. Savelyev illustrates the behind-the-scenes cooperation between the Russian and American governments to stem the flow of missile technologies to Iran.
But at the same time, it also reveals the deep-seated resistance within the Russian military and security establishment against abandoning Russia's ''strategic'' role in cultivating clients and lucrative contracts for transferring military science and technology.
''I would tell you honestly that I wanted to work with them,'' Mr. Savelyev said of his Iranian contacts, ''and I would be teaching Iranians rocket technology today if I could because otherwise I would have my professors going to the market to sell fruits and vegetables to earn a living.''
In a lengthy interview, Mr. Savelyev defended his activities, saying he was unfairly disciplined because of his hard-line nationalistic views and because he has become a vocal critic of President Vladimir Putin's cooperation with the United States on arms control initiatives. Mr. Savelyev contends that such cooperation will weaken Russia's own rocket forces and will alienate Iran.
''I believe there is nothing more important than having Iran as our ally,'' he said, ''because if we fell into a state of animosity with Iran, the whole of Central Asia could be lost to the influence of the Islamic world.'' He also argues that if Russia does not help Iran build medium-range ballistic missiles, ''North Korea and China are ready to offer Iran help with new rocket programs.''
Last month in Washington, the State Department spokesman, James Rubin, singled out Mr. Savelyev as a threat to U.S. security interests.
Mr. Savelyev said he never transferred more than a good education in basic science.
''Can Newton's law of gravity be taught to Iranian students?'' he asked with a defiant tone. ''Because if you don't know the laws of gravity, you cannot build rockets.''
Today, Mr. Savelyev, 62, is still in the rector's office at Baltic State, one of Russia's most prestigious scientific centers.
Mr. Savelyev's relationship with Iran began in mid-1996, when he received a telephone call from an Iranian diplomat in Moscow who wanted to discuss an educational proposal. ''I can say that at that time, they were more concerned with preparing specialists in rocket construction'' than any general education, he said.
Days later, Mr. Savelyev greeted an Iranian delegation here that included two rocket experts from the Iranian Defense Ministry as well as an Iranian intelligence officer. The meeting resulted in a handwritten agreement to train Iranian scientists in rocketry.
In early 1997, Israeli officials warned the Clinton administration that a number of Russian organizations were assisting Iran's missile program and U.S. intelligence agencies confirmed that as many as 20 such companies and institutes, including Baltic State, were involved. Mr. Savelyev denies that.
Shortly after the initial group of Iranian students graduated from Baltic State in April 1998, new concerns arose in the United States. A special panel headed by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld estimated that Iran's missile program had made significant strides and might be able to develop an ICBM capable of reaching the United States.
Then, in late July that year, Iran created a sensation in the Middle East by test-firing a medium-range ballistic missile prototype, the Shahab-3, that could carry a 700-kilogram (1,500-pound) warhead 1,300 kilometers (800 miles).
Russia, under pressure from Washington, announced that it was investigating Baltic State and eight other organizations for exporting technologies that could have military uses. Throughout the spring of 1998, Mr. Savelyev said, Baltic State's undergraduate program for Iranian students was thoroughly investigated by a commission that included representatives of the Defense and Education ministries and the general staff of the armed forces, military prosecutors and the Federal Security Service.
''They reached the conclusion that Baltic State was not teaching anything related to rocket construction,'' Mr. Savelyev said. But he was told that if he wanted to continue teaching Iranian students, he would have to draw up a detailed course list and submit it to Moscow for approval.
Without informing the Russian government, Mr. Savelyev flew to Tehran in September 1999 and signed an agreement with K.N. Toosi University of Technology to begin training 17 Iranian students immediately.
But a month into the program, the United States again intervened.
In an October 1999 letter from Vice President Al Gore to Mr. Putin, who was then the prime minister, the Clinton administration complained that Moscow was failing to take action against Russian institutions that were still assisting Iran's missile program. Mr. Savelyev said the letter was read to him by a member of Mr. Putin's staff.
On Dec. 20, Russia's Federal Service for Currency and Export Control opened an investigation that concluded two months later that Baltic State had indeed been transferring expertise that could be useful to Iran's missile program and, therefore, was contrary to Russian national interests.
---
Turner Receives Audience With Putin
Associated Press
May 11, 2000 Filed at 4:39 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/f/AP-Russia-Turner.html
MOSCOW (AP) -- Ted Turner on Thursday became the first Western businessman to receive an audience with Russia's new president, Vladimir Putin, discussing sports and nuclear disarmament.
The two first met in 1994 when Putin, then St. Petersburg's deputy mayor, oversaw preparation for the Goodwill Games organized by Turner. Welcoming the American media mogul in the Kremlin's ornate Blue Hall on Thursday, Putin praised the games as a ``great feat.''
``We discussed the possibility of the games coming back to Russia in the future,'' Turner, the founder of Cable News Network and vice chairman of Time-Warner Inc., told reporters after the meeting.
The two also discussed disarmament, with Turner pushing for the full elimination of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. ``All the major nuclear powers are in peace, what do we need nuclear weapons for?'' Turner said.
Asked whether they discussed the Chechen war and other issues of debate between Russia and the West, Turner responded with a terse ``not very much.''
Related Information From Hoover's Inc. Time Warner Inc Holding Co
-------- sierra leone
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release May 11, 2000
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/2000/5/12/12.text.1
UN Secretary General Annan and I agreed this morning that the international community must intensify international efforts to restore peace in Sierra Leone and to prevent a return to all-out civil war. The situation there has been grave. But the UN is determined to fulfill its mission; African and other nations are willing to act; and we are ready to help them.
I have instructed our military to provide needed assistance to accelerate the deployment of troops to UNAMSIL, and informed the UN that the United States will help transport reinforcements. A U.S. military transport aircraft is now in Jordan to move ammunition and supplies that are needed immediately for the Jordanian elements in Sierra Leone.
We intend to support the commitment West African nations have made to send additional troops to Sierra Leone to restore peace. A U.S. military team is now in Nigeria to determine what assistance might be needed from the international community to outfit and transport these forces as quickly as possible.
I welcome the statement West African leaders made on Tuesday at their emergency Summit in Abuja, Nigeria, calling for the release of all hostages and pledging to protect democratic institutions in Sierra Leone.
I have asked Rev. Jesse Jackson, my Special Envoy for Democracy in Africa, to return to the region to work with leaders there for a peaceful resolution of this crisis. Rev. Jackson has been actively involved in our diplomatic effort to help the people of Sierra Leone realize their peaceful aspirations.
-------- spying
Top Panel Urges Creation of Counterintelligence Czar
Security Agencies Can't Agree Which One Should Have Post
Washington Post
Thursday, May 11, 2000; Page A21
By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-05/11/247l-051100-idx.html
A panel composed of the director of the CIA, the head of the FBI and a deputy secretary of defense has concluded that a single official should be put in charge of counterintelligence efforts throughout the government.
The only rub is that CIA chief George J. Tenet, FBI Director Louis J. Freeh and recently retired deputy defense secretary John J. Hamre could not agree on which department or agency should possess the "national counterintelligence executive" and thus have primacy in the field, according to congressional staff members and administration officials.
Despite the end of the Cold War, counterintelligence has remained a hot area in Washington. In the past year, controversies have erupted over China's alleged theft of nuclear secrets, former CIA director John M. Deutch's writing of classified memos on unsecured home computers, and the State Department's loss of a laptop computer containing secret files about weapons proliferation.
Traditionally, the FBI has handled criminal counterintelligence investigations, but each agency with national security activities has its own counterintelligence division. After a nine-month review, the panel concluded that the efforts by the various agencies have been "piecemeal and parochial."
The panel proposed the new post, a kind of counterintelligence "czar," to remedy what it called "inadequate coordination, cooperation and information sharing between counterintelligence agencies."
The post would be filled by a senior, professional specialist who would operate as the day-to-day boss for protecting secrets and preventing espionage throughout the U.S. government, according to congressional aides who have been briefed on the panel's recommendations.
Although the full proposals, titled "Counterintelligence for the 21st Century," have not been made public, the principal findings and proposals were described last week by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in a report on the fiscal 2001 intelligence budget authorization bill.
The Senate committee commended the panel for agreeing on an "ambitious" plan. But one reason that the senators made the proposals public, according to a congressional source, was "to try to goose the process along to get final agreement."
While the panel could not agree on which government agency should take the lead on counterintelligence, it did suggest that the counterintelligence czar be supervised by a "National Counterintelligence Board of Directors" and a "National Counterintelligence Steering Committee" made up of Cabinet-level officials who would set policy.
That setup would replace the Counterintelligence Policy Board, an interagency group of senior national security officials who have no operational responsibility for counterintelligence.
-------- terrorism
The Fuel of Terrorism
New York Times
May 11, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/letters/l11ter.html
To the Editor:
Your May 3 editorial stating that the terrorism originating in South Asia is motivated primarily by religion and ideology is too narrow, as is the F.B.I. definition that terrorism is carried out "in furtherance of political or social objectives" (letter, May 6). It may be difficult for most Americans to accept, but sometimes terrorists act out of sheer hatred and desire for revenge against our great country.
ARTHUR L. LOWRIE
Lutz, Fla., May 6, 2000
The writer is a retired Foreign Service officer.
-------- ukraine
Chernobyl's risk to sheep may persist for 15 years
By Steve Connor,
Science Editor
11 May 2000
Environment News Service
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Russia/2000-05/chernob110500.shtml
Radioactive pollution from the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 will continue to contaminate British sheep for up to another 15 years.
Scientists have revised their estimates for how long it will take to eradicate contamination from the upland regions of Wales, Cumbria and Scotland after new evidence showed that radioactivity from Chernobyl was more persistent than originally thought.
The most significant pollutant is radiocaesium, which is absorbed by plants and can enter the human food chain through grazing livestock, notably sheep on upland farms.
Scientists had initially estimated that the radiocaesium fallout from Chernobyl - washed out in rainfall - would eventually bind tightly to the clay matrix of the soil, preventing further uptake. But work by a team of scientists has revealed that there is a limit to how much radiocaesium can be "lost" in this way. This has enabled them to formulate new predictions on how long current restrictions on farm livestock in affected areas need to remain in place.
Jim Smith, from the the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorchester, said: "Restrictions in the United Kingdom, for example, may need to be retained for a further 10-15 years, more than 100 times longer than originally estimated."
In a report in the journal Nature, Dr Smith said the rate at which radiocaesium is being "removed" from the environment has slowed down, increasing the effective time it will continue to pose a potential threat. "At the time of the accident we didn't have the same knowledge that we have now. The decontamination of foodstuffs was thought to be more rapid," Dr Smith said.
The scientists say that 389 upland farms responsible for about 232,000 sheep are still subject to restrictions because of the Chernobyl accident.
Tests on three of these farms show that some sheep have levels of radiocaesium that are nearly twice the limit deemed to be safe for human consumption.
Sheep found to have high levels of radiocaesium are moved to decontaminated pastures where the animals can rid themselves of the pollutant.
As bad as the problem is in parts of Britain, it is far worse in Belarus and western Russia, where livestock restrictions are likely to remain in place for another 50 years.
Chernobyl was the site of the worst nuclear accident in history, killing 31 people from radiation sickness.
---
CHERNOBYL'S EFFECTS LINGER ON
May 11, 2000 (BBC)
From: "Steve Wagner" <stevewagner@swords-to-plowshares.org>
LONDON, UK, Levels of radioactivity from the Chernobyl explosion in 1986 remain unexpectedly high in some parts of northern Europe, researchers have found. They say restrictions on some foods in both the United Kingdom and the former Soviet Union will have to remain in place for up to 50 years.
They found that the environment is not cleaning itself as fast as previously thought, and that radioactivity can be released to the soil again after it has been absorbed. This unexpected result means that previous estimates of how long restrictions would be needed are proving wide of the mark.
The researchers' findings are published in Nature. They are from the UK and the Netherlands. They found from analysis of radioactivity in fish in Norway and Cumbria, in north west England, that levels of one element, caesium 137, were higher than expected.
They also measured caesium in terrestrial vegetation and in lake water, and found that its effective ecological half-life rose from between one and four years in the first five years after Chernobyl to between six and 30 years recently.
THE NEWS
Morning news edited by Nikola Stan AIM, Belgrade, May 11, 2000 21:00 http://www.aim.ac.yu/
-------- us military
PENTAGON LOOKING AT CUTS TO NUCLEAR ARSENAL (, MAY 11)
Thursday May 11
New York Times
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Pentagon is looking at the possible national security risk of cutting its nuclear arsenal to 2,000 warheads under a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia, the New York Times reported in its online edition on Thursday.
The report, citing administration officials, said the classified review has been under way for months but has intensified ahead of President Clinton's upcoming summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin agreed in talks three years ago to try to cut the number of long-range warheads to no more than 2,000 to 2,500 as part of a new strategic arms reduction treaty, START III, which is still under negotiation.
Cuts in strategic arms could help Clinton broker a missile-defense deal with Russia, the New York Times said.
The U.S. administration has been seeking to amend the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia to enable the United States to build a controversial new anti-missile defense system. Russia has been resisting changes to the treaty.
The missile defense system aims to give the United States the capability to shoot down nuclear warheads fired by so-called ``rogue'' nations. President Clinton is to decide later this year whether to deploy the system, which is currently undergoing tests.
The New York Times report said Defense Secretary William Cohen would hold another meeting on Thursday to discuss the impact of deeper cuts to the nuclear arsenal.
In two weeks, the findings and recommendations from the classified review are scheduled to be sent to Cohen and Gen. Henry Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for final approval before being delivered to Clinton.
``We're trying to get a better understanding of the risk at the lower numbers and whether we can still meet the deterrent strategy,'' a senior Pentagon official involved in the study told the New York Times. ``It's a prudent thing to do with the summit coming up.''
The American strategic nuclear arsenal currently includes 7,200 warheads while Russia has 6,000.
The report said the Joint Chiefs of Staff have always claimed they would need at least 2,500 warheads to carry out the nation's nuclear war plan.
---------
Joint Chiefs oppose Russian plan to cut 1,000 U.S. warheads
Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
5/11/00
The Joint Chiefs of Staff are opposing a Russian plan favored by the White House to cut the number of U.S. nuclear warheads by 1,000 in time for President Clinton's summit meeting in Moscow later this month.
The Russia Duma, after years of delay, ratified the START II arms treaty last month, which calls for reducing U.S. and Russian arsenals to between 3,000 and 3,500 warheads.
Both sides have agreed to further cuts as part of a new START III accord. President Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin agreed to a START III "framework" at the Helsinki summit in March 1997 that would reduce each side's arsenal by 1,000 warheads to between 2,000 and 2,500 warheads.
Russia's proposed cut of 1,000 warheads would come on top of the framework figure.
Administration officials said yesterday the chiefs and the U.S. Strategic Command favor keeping the number of warheads at the figure agreed upon at the 1997 summit.
Adm. Richard Mies, commander of U.S. strategic nuclear forces, held meetings with the military service chiefs on Monday and Pentagon policy-makers yesterday. He informed Pentagon leaders that the U.S. Strategic Command needs about 2,500 warheads to execute its nuclear deterrence and war-fighting missions.
Another meeting on the strategic arms issue will be held today inside the Pentagon's "tank," as the secure conference room is called.
The administration is preparing its internal position for Mr. Clinton's visit to Moscow. The president is expected to speak to a session of the Russian legislature, the Duma.
The Clinton administration is debating the Russian proposal and is trying to come to agreement on how to respond to the Russians in time for President Clinton's Moscow visit, which begins May 29.
A senior military official said the Department of Defense, the military chiefs and field commanders "are in the process of getting their positions together as we go into the next round of negotiations" with the Russians.
"I think right now the chiefs want to stick with the 2,500 number," the official said.
"What we're seeing right now is discussions within this department Ñ that I'm sure are going on right now at [the State Department and the White House National Security Council] Ñ on how we're going to set the stage for the new round of talks," the military official said.
Another question being debated by military and civilian leaders is whether deeper strategic nuclear arms cuts "get linked to the ABM" Ñ the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that the administration needs to change in order to deploy a limited national missile defense in the next several years, the official said.
Moscow is opposing any deployment of a U.S. nationwide missile defense system.
Defense officials said the White House and State Department want to accept the Russian proposal for deeper cuts since the Russian nuclear arsenal is expected to fall below 2,000 warheads as a result of aging weapons systems and a lack of money for Moscow to build new missiles.
Asked if the president favors the Russian plan for deeper cuts, a White House official would say only that "we are examining the implications of Russia's proposal" for warhead levels of 1,000 to 1,500.
"Our long-standing policy is to seek further stabilizing and verifiable reductions in Russian and U.S. strategic nuclear arsenals through the START process," this official said.
Pentagon and White House officials denied there are any plans for Mr. Clinton to make a unilateral decision to cut U.S. nuclear arsenals from current levels to the warhead ceiling proposed by Russia.
Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican and a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, said he was told by Pentagon officials that Mr. Clinton was working on just such a "presidential nuclear initiative."
He sharply criticized any attempt to make the cuts without consulting Congress.
"My understanding is that the president's nuclear initiative would unilaterally reduce the arsenal by half," Mr. Weldon said in an interview.
Mr. Weldon said the committee defeated an amendment yesterday to this year's defense authorization bill that would give Mr. Clinton greater authority to cut U.S. nuclear forces.
Mr. Weldon also said that the administration is considering deeper nuclear arms cuts without even completing an assessment required under law to gauge strategic nuclear stability under a future START III agreement.
"They have not even briefed Congress, and they have not done that assessment," Mr. Weldon said.
"I am dismayed and alarmed that the Clinton administration would be proposing unilateral action on the part of the U.S. that could undermine both America's security and the strategic balance between the United States and Russia," he said.
"By negotiating an agreement with Russia they know they can't get through the Congress, they are causing a split between the United States and Russia. This president has no credibility to negotiating this kind of arms control agreement just to reinvigorate the failed Russia policies of this administration and to help Al Gore's presidential campaign."
The Russians also are seeking to change the START II ban on multiple-warhead missiles, one of the key benefits of the treaty, defense officials said.
A Senate defense aide said the administration would be giving away U.S. negotiating leverage by agreeing to the Russian plan for deeper warhead reductions.
"Russian force levels are going down anyway, yet this administration insists on giving up U.S. strategic offensive force structure that we need in exchange for a [national missile defense] proposal that is just short of worthless," the aide said. "It's Clinton arms control policy at its worst. It is a desperate move by a president desperate for a place in arms control history."
----
Army Confirms Officer's Claim of Harassment
New York Times
May 11, 2000
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/051100army-harass.html
WASHINGTON, May 10 -- The United States Army's inspector general has concluded that the service's highest-ranking woman was a victim of inappropriate sexual advances from another Army general, Defense Department officials said today.
The inquiry substantiated the claim of the woman, Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy, whose career is often cited as an example of the opportunities for women in uniform, that Maj. Gen. Larry G. Smith touched her inappropriately and tried to kiss her in her office at the Pentagon in 1996, the officials said.
The case, the first instance of a sexual harassment case lodged against one Army general by another, is a serious embarrassment for the Army, which like the other armed services has been roiled by sexual scandals.
General Kennedy's accusation proved explosive among senior Army officers and resulted in an accusation against her -- later dismissed -- of personal misconduct. The conclusions in the inspector general's report were first reported in The Washington Post.
General Kennedy filed a formal complaint last August after the Army announced that General Smith had been appointed deputy inspector general. Officials said she was outraged, since the inspector general's office is responsible for investigating charges of sexual harassment, among other types of misconduct.
When General Smith's promotion was announced, there was no indication in his personnel file that General Kennedy had ever complained about his behavior, officials said.
General Smith, who never took over the post as deputy inspector general, is expected to be forced to retire soon. He is not expected to face a court-martial because Army officials do not consider that the incident merits prosecution.
Although General Kennedy, the Army's first woman to earn three stars, did not formally report the 1996 incident for nearly three years, investigators validated her claim through interviews with friends and peers she spoke to after the event.
An Army spokesman had no immediate comment on the results of the investigation.
Officials cautioned that the disciplinary process against General Smith was far from over. The Army inspector general is preparing to send his findings to the Army's vice chief of staff, Gen. John Keane, who must then issue his own finding. General Smith then has a right to rebuttal before the vice chief makes his final report.
General Smith, who could not be reached for comment tonight, joined the Army in 1966 and served three tours in Vietnam as a cavalry officer. In 1996, at the time he was accused of the inappropriate advance against General Kennedy, he was the manager of the Saudi Arabian National Guard Modernization Program, which provided training and equipment to Saudi forces.
While the Army's inspector general, Lt. Gen. Michael W. Ackerman, has led the inquiry, the clash between two generals was deemed sufficiently high-profile to invite oversight by the Pentagon's inspector general, who may ultimately be called upon to determine any actions taken against General Smith.
General Kennedy is one of only three women in the military who are three-star officers, out of a total of 116 officers who hold the rank in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.
General Kennedy, who recently announced that she would retire later this year, had been deputy chief of staff for intelligence before her promotion to lieutenant general in May 1997. She joined the Army in 1969, after receiving a bachelor's degree in philosophy from what is now Rhodes College in Tennessee.
She advanced in an institution that initially had a separate women's corps with limited opportunities for women. She eventually commanded two military intelligence battalions, in Germany and Hawaii.
She has refused to discuss publicly her allegations of sexual harassment. In interviews after her promotion to lieutenant general, however, she said said she had experienced sexual harassment in her career. In an interview with ABC News in 1997, she said she had dealt with the incidents "individually."
"I think the important thing about it is that early in my career, what I did was I dealt with it individually," she said. "My approach was to turn it over to my boss. And I was very impressed with the way it was handled."
Recently, Pentagon officers have sought to portray the male-dominated military as more open to women while insisting that sexual harassment would never be tolerated.
General Kennedy's case obviously undercut that impression, as did investigations of two other male generals who were demoted for having had adulterous affairs.
---
General's harassment claim supported
USA Today
05/11/00- Updated 12:13 PM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncsthu07.htm
WASHINGTON (AP) - Army investigators have substantiated a charge by the service's highest-ranking woman that she was touched in a sexual way by another general in her Pentagon office, senior defense officials said Thursday.
The finding, in support of an allegation by Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy against Army Maj. Gen. Larry G. Smith, will be reviewed by the Army's vice chief of staff, Gen. John Keane, who will determine whether to take disciplinary action against Smith.
Keane also could ask the investigators to look further into the incident, which happened in 1996, and resubmit their report, officials familiar with the case said.
The officials discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.
The Army has refused to comment publicly on the matter - even to confirm Kennedy made an allegation - since it came to light in March.
''The Army will not comment on stories which speculate about administrative investigations,'' Maj. Gen. John G. Meyer, the Army's chief of public information, said Thursday. ''Inspector-general investigative procedures are designed to encourage candor and protect the individual privacy of all parties.''
The Washington Post reported Thursday that Smith probably will receive a reprimand and be forced to retire if, as expected, the Army inspector general's findings are accepted by Keane. Smith will be provided a copy of the findings and be given time to offer contrary evidence, officials said Thursday.
Similar stories were reported in The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.
A reporter's phone call today to the office of Smith's military lawyer, Army Lt. Col. Robert Teetsel, was not immediately returned.
The exact behavior of which Smith is accused has not been made clear. The Post reported that the inspector general found that Smith tried to kiss Kennedy, and that Army officials do not view this as actionable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Smith, who is married, was announced last August as the next deputy inspector general of the Army, a position in which he would be responsible for overseeing investigations of the kind of behavior he is accused of.
His status had been on official ''hold'' since last November, and he is assigned to the Army's Materiel Command in Alexandria, Va.
Kennedy reportedly went to the Army inspector general with her complaint about Smith after the August announcement that he was being promoted to the deputy inspector general's post. The Post reported today that Kennedy had hoped to save the Army embarrassment by pursuing the matter discreetly.
Since the case became public in March, neither Kennedy nor Smith has been willing to discuss it publicly.
Army officials said today that Kennedy had no comment on news reports of the inspector general's findings.
The Post said investigators found that while Kennedy did not make a formal complaint of sexual harassment at the time of the incident, she described it to friends and colleagues soon after it occurred.
Investigators found the supporting accounts by Kennedy's friends and colleagues to be persuasive.
Kennedy, the Army's deputy chief of staff for intelligence, is due to retire in June.
She is the Army's highest-ranking woman and one of only three female three-star generals in the military. In 1997 she served on a special task force that examined sexual harassment in the Army and concluded that it existed ''throughout the Army, crossing gender, rank and racial lines.''
The Kennedy case is the latest in a string of embarrassing sexual misconduct cases in the Army. Coincidentally, one earlier case involved another two-star general from the inspector general's office.
Maj. Gen. David Hale served in the position of deputy inspector general for only four months in 1997 before he was allowed to retire after being accused of having had sex with wives of subordinate officers.
Hale later was called out of retirement, charged with misconduct and demoted one rank after pleading guilty.
-------- us nuc facilities
-------- california
Hanford "downwinders" find it difficult to accept Lab's answers
From: Steve Wagner [mailto:lakemerrittneighbors@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 5:50 AM
The Alameda County (California) School Board recently brought the issue of tritium leaks at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory into the glaring spotlight of publicity by recommending that field trips to the nearby Lawrence Hall of Science be stopped because of the danger of exposure to the radioactive leaks. Lab apologists rushed into action with assurances that everything was alright. Trisha Pritikin and Steve Wagner, both parents of Berkeley school children, had been there and done that ...... they are both "downwinders" from the Hanford nuclear weapons facility in Washington state. Their parents had heard just such assurances from atomic industry apologists a generation ago. Trisha and Steve wrote the following article that was published in the Perspective section of The Berkeley Daily Planet on Thursday, May 4, 2000, page 4:
HANFORD "DOWNWINDERS" FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT LAB'S ANSWERS
The recent resolution passed by the Alameda County Board of Education seems to have caught Lawrence Hall of Science and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab officials offguard, in its straightforward, no-nonsense advisory to Alameda County Schools to suspend field trips to the Lawrence Hall of Science. Children could be put in danger, the Board of Education advised, by radiation releases in the form of tritium from the stack of the National Tritium Labeling Facility, located adjacent to the Hall of Science.
Last week's amended version of that resolution by the Board of Education softens but does not completely rescind the warning issued to parents, teachers and students. We are told in the amended resolution passed Tuesday, April 25, that the Alameda County Board of Education "notes the differences of opinion regarding the possibility of hazards associated with visits to the Lawrence Hall of Science, and recommends that educators, students, and parents, independently assess the possibility of risk and make individual decisions regarding the visits to the Lawrence Hall of Science."
Sounds good on paper, but how do we get this information, and how do we get it from unbiased sources, or at the very least, from a balance of sources, in order to come to some sort of meaningful conclusions on whether all field trips to the LHS are off? Do we proceed to the Hall only when clad in full radiation protection gear and respirator; or do we declare all this a false alarm, and merrily frolic with abandon amongst the tritium-infused eucalyptus pods?
And, what about those worrisome reports of yet another source of radiation release from the Lab, involving neutron bombardment of neighborhoods around the Lab's accelerator? These are the questions and puzzlements confronting the community of parents, faced with a barrage of media coverage, some proclaiming this all to be no more than hoopla, some saying any radiation is harmful, some saying the jury is really out at this point.
Then, of course, we have Lab representatives pointing out that radiation levels are well below regulatory standards, while citizen advocacy groups argue that such statements by the Lab distort reality. The Lab, the City, regulatory agencies and the citizen activist groups have been at this for a long time. But, it is only now that this issue, (primarily due to intense media coverage of the Alameda County Board of Education resolution) has risen into the visual field of the public at large, and particularly, of parents with children who frequent the Lawrence Hall of Science.
What to do? Well, fortunately one thing is working in the citizens' and parents' favor here: The City of Berkeley has hired an independent consultant, Berndt Franke, a person with a very positive track record with the public, to perform an independent analysis of potential risks. Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, in turn, was wise enough to contract with Dr. Owen Hoffman of SENES Oak Ridge, who is known to many members of the public and scientific community at sites of environmental radiation releases as a very straight shooter, with high integrity, someone who tells it like it is.
So, we are off to a good start with regard to the "experts" to be involved in helping to analyze the true risk presented. The Lab plans a series of meetings with parents to answer questions and safety concerns, and those questions and safety concerns are rolling in, perhaps faster and in much greater quantities than the Lab had anticipated or hoped.
Because the two of us, as Berkeley parents, are also both people ("Hanford downwinders") who were exposed as children to offsite radiation emissions from the Hanford nuclear weapons facility in southeastern Washington State, we are understandably both a bit wary of blanket safety assurances by operators of federal facilities handling radioactive materials. After all, our parents were reassured by the operators of the Hanford facility that it was perfectly safe to live downwind of the plant. And the result? Both of us now have severe thyroid disease from the radioiodine we inhaled and ingested as infants and children from Hanford's releases. We have parents and other relatives who have died far before their time from aggressive forms of cancer.
We realize that the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Hanford are two distinct radiation release scenarios, but safety reassurances made by the Lab cause in us a certain hesitation to believe without proof. We are ready to listen and to learn, like the parents who have spoken to us, but our fears are not readily put to rest by Lab officials saying not to worry.
-- Trisha Pritikin is the parent of two children in the Berkeley public schools, and Steve Wagner is the parent of one child in the BUSD.
-------- kentucky
SHIFTING BLAME
Politicians put onus on USEC
May 11, 2000
Paducah Sun
http://www.paducahsun.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi?/200005/11+00uv_editorial.htm l+20000511+editorial
Officials with the U.S. Department of Energy have repeatedly broken their promises to workers at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, but give these federal bureaucrats credit for audacity. They have no qualms about telling the United States Enrichment Corp., the plant's operator, to take care of workers by dipping into its pension fund reserves to provide early retirement incentives.
In an effort to cut costs and improve the company's shaky financial position, USEC officials recently announced they are planning to eliminate 621 jobs at the uranium enrichment plants in Paducah and Portsmouth, Ohio.
Suddenly, USEC was besieged by amateur financial analysts, including members of Congress and Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, who offered their opinion that the company can afford to offer early retirement incentives to help reduce the number of forced layoffs.
USEC's managers disagree: They insist the company's pension fund cannot absorb the cost of early retirement benefits.
Ordinarily, this would be the end of the dispute. After all, USEC is now part of the private sector. USEC managers are accountable to their stockholders, not to politicians.
Secretary Richardson is entitled to his opinion about the pension fund, but he is not empowered to make decisions for USEC and its stockholders.
Unfortunately, this is not an ordinary business situation. Congress and the Clinton administration privatized USEC two years ago, but they didn't remove the political strings.
Washington keeps jerking those strings, making it more and more difficult for USEC to survive in a competitive world market for reactor fuel.
The pension fund dispute is only the latest example of political meddling that threatens the company's financial viability.
With former U.S. Sen. Wendell Ford leading the way, Congress endorsed privatization as the best strategy for keeping the U.S. uranium enrichment industry competitive. Congress and the Clinton administration accepted the theory of privatization, but it quickly became clear they weren't comfortable with the real world ramifications of it. As a result, the privatization agreement saddled USEC with a number of mandates, including one that forces it to keep the Paducah and Portsmouth plants open for seven years unless the company is nearing financial collapse.
The administration's Russian uranium deal, which produced a glut of enriched uranium on the world market, forcing prices down, virtually guaranteed that USEC would run into trouble.
We're not prepared to defend all the decisions of USEC's managers, but the fact is, they didn't put the company in this hole. Ironically, the people who are mainly responsible for USEC's difficulties now are demanding that the company come up with millions of dollars to fund early retirement incentives.
The position taken by Richardson and DOE officials on the retirement incentives is especially galling. Richardson says the incentives are needed, but USEC must pay for them through its pension fund. A top DOE official dismissed as too conservative actuarial reports on the pension fund that show USEC would have to put additional money in the fund if the company offers the early retirement plan.
Keep in mind that Paducah is littered with the broken promises of Richardson and DOE officials.
On a variety of issues ranging from funding for health screenings to the construction of congressionally mandated facilities to convert depleted uranium into a safer form, DOE has failed to take responsibility for the welfare of workers at the gaseous diffusion plants.
The conversion plants would provide jobs for displaced workers, but DOE has consistently refused to move the projects forward.
U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell recently sent a letter to Secretary Richardson suggesting that funds be made available to cover early retirement incentives at the enrichment plants. Richardson's response was let USEC pay for it.
It's hypocritical for the energy secretary to put this monkey on USEC's weakened back. The federal government has done very little for the workers who once helped carry the nation's Cold War nuclear program. Still, federal officials have the gall to argue the struggling plant operator should assume the financial burden of early retirement for these workers.
An impression is that DOE officials and members of Congress would like USEC to manage its retirement fund in the same fraudulent way the government has managed Social Security. In other words, pay off workers today and reap the political benefits, but leave future retirees stranded.
If Congress and DOE are feeling generous toward the workers at the gaseous diffusion plants, they should come up with the funding for the early retirement package. In any event, they should stand aside and give USEC's management at least some chance to right their own ship.
----
Probe sought in USEC security
By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650
http://www.paducahsun.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi?/200005/11+00ur_news.html+200 00511+news
The head of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant guards union wants the Department of Justice to investigate his claim that a 1993 secret plant security plan â€" which reportedly does not reflect new revelations about nuclear weapons work â€" is fraudulent.
John Driskill, president of United Plant Guard Workers of America Local 111, seeks an injunction through the Justice Department against cutting guards' jobs until plant security can be independently assessed. USEC Inc., which runs the plant, plans to eliminate four security guard positions starting July 14 as part of 271 job reductions, he said.
Driskill said he faxed a letter Wednesday to Bill Campbell, head of a Justice Department investigation at the plant, seeking the injunction in federal court. He said he had previously expressed his concerns to Campbell, an assistant U.S. attorney in Louisville.
"I've asked him to intercede in these layoffs because of the public safety risk," Driskill said. "USEC and the Department of Energy both said the threat assessment done in 1993 is wrong. He (Campbell) knows it is wrong, and I think it will prove to be fraudulent."
Because the document is classified, Driskill would not elaborate. But USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle said the company and DOE have started work to revise the threat assessment to reflect new information uncovered by the department about nuclear weapons parts in DOE-controlled waste areas at the plant.
"That's what this is about," she said.
Attempts to reach Campbell Wednesday afternoon were unsuccessful. He did not return telephone messages left through his Louisville office. The Department of Justice probe will determine if the government should join a whistle-blower lawsuit alleging past plant contractor Lockheed Martin profited by covertly poisoning workers and the public.
The assessment, a classified document written in November 1993, analyzes various security threats to the plant. Driskill said USEC management ignored recommendations from its own experts and a second, independent team of experts that the plan was inadequate.
"The assessment, prepared for USEC and DOE by Lockheed Martin Utility Services, was approved by the same managers who now run the plant under USEC Inc. management," the letter states. "The DOE and USEC acknowledge this assessment is wrong and must be revised, as is the case for a number of other plans and certificates including possibly the license issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission."
Lockheed Martin ran the plant for USEC until a year ago, when USEC assumed management and operation of uranium enrichment.
Driskill's letter describes the assessment as "the foundation" of plant security. "It would seem reasonable that any further reductions in the security force be postponed in light of the serious and imminent risk to public safety and national security," the letter says.
Although he would not elaborate on the risk, Driskill said two plant employees complained about the plan's shortcomings and were disciplined. The author of the plan was moved to another job, he said, adding that the matter is part of the NRC's next enforcement conference with USEC.
NRC spokeswoman Pam Alloway-Mueller said the conference, rescheduled Wednesday from May 17 to June 26, is confidential because it deals with personnel matters. However, USEC previously said the conference related to an NRC notice of violation against the company for disciplining 11 employees because of training-related issues. No mention was made of the threat assessment.
The assessment should have been approved by the Energy Department's Office of Safeguards and Security in Washington, but has no approval signature from that office, Driskill said. DOE spokesman Walter Perry said that after a limited search, the department had been unable to find the assessment, but would continue looking into Driskill's allegations.
"That thing is full of false statements and fraudulent claims," Driskill said. "I think it's criminal because it has absolutely put public safety at great risk and they (managers) have ignored safety recommendations from their own experts and threatened people's careers."
Apart from the Department of Justice investigation, DOE has an ongoing probe into nuclear weapons work at the plant from the 1950s to the 1980s. In February, the Sun obtained a DOE employee memo revealing new evidence that nuclear weapons parts were brought into the plant in the past to retrieve previous metals and to bury.
Last week, DOE acknowledged Driskill's claims that 17 complete nuclear bomb casings and other partial casings had been found above ground in an unclassified storage area north of the plant.
-------- new mexico
U.S. says Los Alamos nuclear materials safe
Excite News
Updated 2:14 PM ET May 11, 2000
http://news.excite.com/news/r/000511/14/environment-losalamos-clinton2
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said Thursday it believed the nuclear weapons laboratory at Los Alamos was safe from a raging fire that forced the evacuation of 11,000 residents from the New Mexico town.
"Our understanding from the people at Los Alamos is that those assets are protected now," said White House spokesman Joe Lockhart. "The plant is safeguarded and fire resistant -- the main assets of that -- and I expect that they will be protected."
Flying embers set off spot fires Wednesday on the grounds of Los Alamos National Laboratory, the nation's largest nuclear weapons laboratory set up with the town in the 1940s to house the Manhattan Project that created the first atomic bomb in 1945. One blaze swept around a concrete weapons-testing building before it was extinguished.
Officials at Los Alamos said plutonium and high explosives were securely sealed in disaster-proof concrete and steel bunkers.
Lockhart said the government would do everything possible to contain the fire, which damaged or destroyed two-thirds of the houses in the town hours after it was evacuated.
President Clinton offered his sympathies to the people forced to evacuate by what he called the "terrible fire" that had surrounded and engulfed part of the town.
"Most important, I just want to give my sympathies to the people who have lost their homes," Clinton said at a White House event. "This is a very, very difficult situation, and I know that the prayers and support of all Americans will be with the people out there."
Top officials toured the site Thursday including Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, Federal Emergency Management Agency Director James Lee Witt and the heads of the National Park Service and the Forest Service.
"The full weight of the federal government now is being deployed to help contain this fire and also to help those who are affected by it, both to get temporary shelter and start the process of rebuilding," Lockhart said.
---
N.M. town flees fierce fire
Los Alamos nuclear lab closed; residents ordered to evacuate
Pioneer Planet
Published: Thursday, May 11, 2000
BOB DROGIN LOS ANGELES TIMES
http://www.pioneerplanet.com/seven-days/1/news/docs/029226.htm
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - Federal and state authorities rushed Wednesday to evacuate 15,000 people from Los Alamos, home of the United States' premier nuclear weapons laboratory, shortly before a nightmarish forest fire roared into town and began burning dozens of homes.
More than 800 weary firefighters were forced to retreat from the fast-moving Cerro Grande blaze, as fierce winds whipped the inferno into a firestorm that threatened to engulf a hospital, a high school and other residential areas.
At 10:30 p.m., a county spokesman said one in four homes in the city were in flames.
Energy Department officials said plutonium and other nuclear materials are safely stored in fireproof facilities at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, just outside town, and the fire posed no risk of releasing radiation or causing an explosion. High explosives are stored underground in concrete bunkers.
The lab has been closed since Monday as the fire, which started as a controlled burn to clear brush in a nearby national forest, roared steadily closer.
President Clinton declared the town a disaster area.
``This is an act of Mother Nature that couldn't be any worse,'' New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson said after touring the eerily empty town until a ``wall of fire'' forced him and his entourage to retreat.
``Los Alamos is in the way of the fire,'' Johnson added. ``From the looks of it, it just couldn't be worse.''
Hours later, it was. Once darkness fell, dramatic TV pictures showed billowing flames jumping from home to home and building to building in the city's leafy western subdivisions. A handful, then a dozen, then scores of homes soon were ablaze.
County officials said that the fierce flames and heat had forced firefighters to retreat, and they watched helplessly as the fire spread unchecked. Officials said they would have to wait until the winds died. ``There's nothing we can do now,'' said Jim Paxon, a fire department spokesman.
No injuries were reported, officials said. More than 160 National Guard troops were sent to the area to help prevent looting and assist in the evacuation, according to spokesman Tom Koch.
A bumper-to-bumper stream of heavily packed cars, trucks and other vehicles crawled down winding roads out of Los Alamos all afternoon to escape the flames as a choking shroud of grey smoke and heavy ash blanketed the rugged mountain region of northern New Mexico.
Officials also ordered the evacuation of western areas of Espanola, a smaller town 20 miles northeast of Los Alamos.
Earlier Wednesday, grimy-faced officials pulled all 800 fire fighters off the line and grounded aerial ``slurry bombers'' and helicopters from dumping fire retardants as gusting winds fanned the flames and sent thick plumes of smoke miles miles into the air.
The National Weather Service warned that the winds, which gusted from 35 to 50 miles an hour Wednesday, are likely to increase today.
Emergency officials ordered the evacuation at 1:30 p.m. and said that had emptied the town of all but a few diehard residents by nightfall. The town serves as the bedroom community for the Los Alamos lab, which was secretly built during World War II to develop and build the first atomic bomb as part of the Manhattan Project.
---
Blaze spreads, forces evacuation of 11,000
Detroit News
Thursday, May 11, 2000
National Briefs By The Detroit News
http://detnews.com/2000/nation/0005/11/a04-54191.htm
LOS ALAMOS, N.M. -- A blaze that had been set to clear brush but raged out of control over the weekend spread into Los Alamos and burned homes Wednesday, forcing the evacuation of all 11,000 residents in this town, the site of America's most storied nuclear laboratory. The Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos schools and county offices have been closed for three days. The lab, which houses 2.7 metric tons of plutonium and plutonium waste, is out of the fire lanes, officials said.
---
Los Alamos Security Raised as Forest Fire Rages
Washington Post
Thursday, May 11, 2000, Page A05
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-05/11/297l-051100-idx.html
Armed guards were deployed yesterday to protect three areas where special nuclear materials, including plutonium, are stored at the Los Alamos National Laboratory as a week-old forest fire driven by high winds leapt into the canyon around the New Mexico town of Los Alamos, forcing evacuation of its 11,000 inhabitants and setting neighborhoods ablaze, officials said.
"We are in a retreat situation," county spokesman Bill Lehman told the Associated Press late last night, adding that firefighters were running out of water.
The oldest of the nuclear storage areas on the 42-square-mile government facility is burrowed into the wall of a nearby canyon, and the land around it is in danger from the fast-moving fire because it is surrounded by vegetation. The radioactive nuclear material itself is "encased in stone and fireproof," according to an Energy Department official.
Laboratory guards in Humvees, who have been protecting the isolated area from intruders, are expected to be moved to the top of a nearby hill to avoid flames while still being able to watch the storage entryway, according to department sources.
The other areas are near the main laboratory facilities, and their nuclear materials are in flame-proof bunkers.
"People with guns are in position to maintain security," a department source said yesterday.
Los Alamos director John Browne told the Albuquerque Journal on Monday that high explosives at the lab were not in danger because they are buried in cement bunkers with steel doors that survived a fire in 1977.
National Park Service employees set the fire Friday to burn small trees and underbrush in nearby Bandelier National Monument, to prevent a future catastrophic fire. Late Friday, erratic winds sent the blaze out of control, and it has burned nearly 1,000 acres, a New Mexico State Forestry Division spokesman said.
Bandelier Superintendent Roy Weaver said Monday that conditions seemed right for a controlled burn, but the AP reported that a forecast sent to the park said any fire was likely to grow because winds would increase, temperatures would rise and humidity would fall. Weaver said he had not seen the forecast.
A lab spokesman said late yesterday that the fire was moving parallel to the west side of the lab property and that bulldozers had cleared areas around cement bunkers near the flames.
The lab itself has been closed for three days and is not expected to reopen today because winds are forecast to reach 50 mph, making control of the blaze doubtful.
"From the looks of it, it just couldn't be worse," Gov. Gary Johnson told reporters after touring the town yesterday.
The out-of-control fire caused President Clinton to declare Los Alamos a disaster area, eligible for help from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but emergency firefighting crews and National Guard troops who were rushed in to battle the blaze were told they would have to wait until the wind died down.
"There's nothing we can do now," the Los Angeles Times quoted fire department spokesman Jim Paxon as saying.
---
11,000 flee fiery Los Alamos
Denver Post 05/11/00
By Mark Obmascik and Shaun Stanley
The Denver Post
http://www.denverpost.com/news/news0511f.htm
May 11 - LOS ALAMOS, N.M. - Whipped by 50-mph winds, a week-old forest fire exploded Wednesday into two canyons flanking the city, forcing the evacuation of 11,000 residents and a nuclear weapons laboratory.
While fleeing homeowners piled belongings on top of their cars for a bumper-to-bumper ride out of town, firefighters pushed to keep flames from Los Alamos National Laboratory, home of a major plutonium stockpile, high explosives and acres of polluted soil.
By 4 p.m., soaring clouds of black smoke had turned the day as dark as night, and homes on the west end of town burned in 80-foot flames. At 5:30 p.m., when the fire leaped across the crowns of ponderosa pines in subdivisions with 500 homes, radio commanders ordered firefighters to "abandon that area" west of Diamond Drive.
When a 47th Street resident refused to evacuate a house in the fire's path at 6:15 p.m., firefighters asked commanders for advice. The radio dispatcher's reply: "It's his choice. Leave him. Get out."
President Clinton declared Los Alamos a major disaster area.
"The fire blew up and jumped the fire line," said fire spokeswoman M.J. Byrne. "We're up against 50-mph gusts. The canyons are so rocky and so difficult and so steep that, for the safety of the firefighters, we're not sending them into the canyons."
Nuclear lab officials said buildings and storage bunkers were designed to withstand a major fire, but environmental managers worried that flames could spread contamination from years of outdoor dumping at the national laboratory.
"It's really a crapshoot," said Rich Mayer, who supervises the $600 million toxic-waste cleanup of the lab for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
"People usually don't call me about hazardous-waste facilities being on fire."
Pete Maggiore, New Mexico's top state environmental official, said, "We're concerned about how the plume of smoke moves and whether it moves over areas of habitation. It's a stay-tuned-for-more-details situation." The EPA was flying two toxic-waste specialists to Los Alamos from Dallas to check the smoke plume.
According to the federal government's most recent declassified report, Los Alamos, birthplace of the atomic bomb, was home to 5,940 pounds of plutonium in 1994.
The lab was fined $1.6 million by New Mexico environmental regulators in 1998 for illegally storing more than 150 gas canisters in an abandoned weapons facility and digging up pavement over a toxic waste burial site and dumping it without testing for contamination. The site is polluted with radioactive substances, plus industrial solvents, heavy metals and PCBs, EPA officials said.
"The nuclear materials are stored in a building that is disaster-proof, built to survive a major fire, earthquake and airplane crash," said Jim Damneskiold, spokesman for the national laboratory. Since withstanding another large forest fire in 1996, the lab has cleared away 1,000 tons of flammable brush from the site, he said.
The blaze, named the Cerro Grande fire, was set deliberately on May 4 by the National Park Service to clear brush at Bandelier National Monument. Though park officials hoped to burn 900 acres, the fire jumped a fireline in its second day and has consumed more than 4,100 acres since then.
By 2 p.m. Wednesday, the fire blew up Los Alamos and Acid canyons, leading police to drive slowly through subdivisions and bellow orders through a megaphone for residents to evacuate. At the Casa de Luz apartment complex, Bruce Myer quickly jammed his Honda sedan with family photos, a computer and his guns.
"I've got to get my firearms out. I couldn't stand myself if a firefighter was hurt," Myer said, packing two rifle cases into his car.
A neighbor, Terry Singell, quickly grabbed the trinkets of his worldwide tours. "I may lose my apartment, but I'm not losing my travel treasures."
More than 600 firefighters from four states battled the blaze, using 21 fire engines, seven helicopters, five slurry bombers and two spotter planes. One fire engine had been abandoned behind fire lines by 6:30 p.m., the governor's press secretary said.
At one point, New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson drove with his wife, Dee, along Diamond Drive and saw a spot fire spreading onto a lawn.
"The governor yelled, "Stop the car!' " said press secretary Diane Kinderwater. "He jumped out of the vehicle and stomped out the fire with his feet."
A commercial airline pilot told passengers on a flight into Santa Fe that the smoke plume from the Los Alamos fire reached an elevation of 27,000 feet.
Federal officials offered more help, but state officials said there was little people could do but run.
"Right now, it's not a question of resources. It's a question of Mother Nature and the wind," Kinderwater said.
Denver Post staff writer Ann Schrader contributed to this report.
---
Lab Says Nuclear Materials Protected
Abuquerque Journal
Thursday, May 11, 2000
By John J. Lumpkin and Ian Hoffman Journal Staff Writer
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/4news05-11-00.htm
The blaze gutting the Atomic City on Wednesday night is expected to leave untold damage and human anguish. But the prospects of chemical explosions or some radioactive nightmare at the town's nuclear-weapons lab are quite low, state and lab officials said.
Los Alamos National Laboratory officials repeated earlier assurances Wednesday that explosive and nuclear material kept there is safe, mostly entombed in concrete buildings.
"The risk to the lab pales in significance compared to what's happening to the town right now," said Lee McAtee, a health physicist and deputy director of the lab's Environment, Safety and Health Division. "The town site is going through devastation. There's a real human tragedy here."
As of midnight, the Cerro Grande Fire had swept onto LANL property, but officials were not sure of the extent of damage.
One building on Technical Area 16 caught fire earlier Wednesday, lab officials said, but crews quickly knocked out that fire. Explosives are stored in Technical Area 16 but several miles from the building.
Several other small fires broke out earlier in TA-16, across N.M. 501 from the main body of the fire. Those, too, were quickly put out.
By far most of the lab's plutonium and other "special nuclear materials" and hazardous chemicals are stored in fire-resistant buildings, often walled in concrete. The most sensitive of these, the plutonium facility, was designed to withstand the crash of a Boeing 747 and contain most of the radioactive materials inside. "We're looking at concrete facilities, and the fire's not anywhere near them," McAtee said.
Some environmentalists and scientists remain concerned that the fire could release small concentrations of radioactive materials if it burns over Bayou Canyon, site of the Ra-La experiments in the lab's early years. The canyon underwent two cleanups but some of its plants and trees still test mildly "hot" for strontium-90.
Yet, said McAtee: "It would create a risk that's so minimal you'd never ever be able to see it."
Greg Mello, a disarmament advocate and longtime lab watchdog, agreed: "The radioactivity in vegetation in Bayou Canyon is unfortunate, but I don't think it would be a major health problem to people far away. Maybe if I were a firefighter, I might be nervous in some areas, perhaps."
A potentially greater worry is flash flooding after the fire in Los Alamos, Acid and DP Canyons - all places where the lab disgorged radioactive liquid waste during the Manhattan Project and early years of the Cold War. The radioactive particles in the effluent tend to bind tightly to canyon-bottom sediments, which could be buried in mud or flushed toward the Rio Grande.
Activists pressed the U.S. Department of Energy to study the ecological and human health threats of a wildfire a few years ago, but no thorough study was done.
"We're dealing with an unknown," said another lab watchdog, Jay Coghlan. "They completely ignored the question."
Los Alamos Canyon also contains the decommissioned Omega West Reactor, but its concrete walls are at least 3 feet thick and all its fuel rods were removed years ago.
State environmental officials were keeping an eye on LANL's storage area for chemicals and hazardous wastes, but said they were more immediately worried about hazardous releases from burning houses.
"There's probably going to be toxic releases" whether the fire burns through the town or the lab, said Greg Lewis, head of water and waste management for the New Mexico Environment Department. "Your average residential structure has a lot of chemicals in it."
Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, sought and received confirmation that "federal assets normally used for national security would be used to monitor Los Alamos." That term generally means satellites and other intelligence-gathering resources.
Most of LANL's radioactive materials are kept in safes or underground bunkers deep in the heart of the laboratory in areas cleared of trees. Most of the lab's radioactive wastes are stored at Technical Area 54, at least four miles southeast of the fire, which was headed northward.
Conventional high explosives are kept in similar, hardened bunkers. There are no plans to move either the radioactive material or the conventional explosives from those bunkers, said Kevin Roark, a lab spokesman.
"Their primary design is to keep accidental explosions in," he said. "That design doubles really well for keeping fire out."
In fact, a wildfire would be allowed to roll right over the bunkers, as happened in the 1977 La Mesa Fire.
"The public should be reassured that any of the hazardous materials housed at the lab are going to maintain their security," he said.
Nuclear weapons data and other vital national security information are similarly stored in fireproof, secure areas.
Less-secure scientific experiments and data are not similarly protected, however, Roark said.
"I'm sure there are quite a number of leading researchers who are very worried about their data," he said. "Many of the experiments are ongoing. But those concerns really pale in comparison to the other stuff that's happening - the loss of homes, the displacement of families."
He said concerns about low levels of explosives residue and other contaminants in the canyons near Los Alamos, a legacy of the Manhattan Project, were secondary.
"It's too early to know the effect of a forest fire on that," he said. "I don't think anybody's overly concerned at this time."
The lab has been closed since Monday. A force of 500 security and emergency personnel has remained on site and will stay there unless immediately threatened by fire.
A bulletin on the lab's Web site, www.lanl.gov, pictured an animated flame next to the words "Fire Danger Extreme." An announcement read: "Do not try to come to the Laboratory."
---
Fire empties Los Alamos area
San Jose Mercury News
Published Thursday, May 11, 2000, in the San Jose Mercury News
BY BOB DROGIN Los Angeles Times
http://www7.mercurycenter.com/premium/nation/docs/fire11.htm
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- A raging forest fire -- originally set as a controlled burn -- forced authorities to hurriedly evacuate all but emergency crews from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the United States' top nuclear weapons facility, and an estimated 15,000 nearby residents Wednesday.
Federal officials said the fast-moving Cerro Grande fire posed no risk of releasing radiation or causing explosions from plutonium and other nuclear materials stored in fireproof facilities at the lab. High explosives are stored underground in concrete bunkers.
``The nuclear materials are all safe and secure,'' said Tracy Loughead, a Department of Energy official in Los Alamos. She said several spot fires were extinguished on lab property Wednesday but that the main blaze had bypassed the facility and had burned houses in the nearby town of Los Alamos.
The lab, which is responsible for the design, development and safe stewardship of 85 percent of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, has been closed since Monday as high winds drove the hellish blaze steadily closer.
President Clinton declared the region a major disaster area Wednesday. The decision clears the way for special federal assistance, including temporary housing, from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
``This is an act of Mother Nature that couldn't be any worse,'' Gov. Gary Johnson told reporters after touring the eerily empty town with his wife in late afternoon and vainly trying to stomp out a lawn fire until a ``wall of fire'' forced them to retreat.
A bumper-to-bumper stream of heavily packed cars, trucks and other vehicles crawled down narrow, winding roads out of Los Alamos all afternoon to escape the flames as a choking shroud of gray smoke and heavy ash blanketed the rugged mountain region of northern New Mexico.
Grimy-faced fire officials began pulling all 800 firefighters off the line before dawn Wednesday and grounded aerial ``slurry bombers'' and helicopters from dumping fire retardants as fierce dry winds whipped the inferno.
Officials said the fire was burning out of control and that 147 National Guardsmen, armed with 20 water tankers, and other emergency firefighting crews rushed to the area Wednesday would have to wait until the winds died down.
But officials warned that the winds, which gusted from 35 to 50 mph Wednesday, could increase today.
Thick flames reportedly were burning the first homes in a leafy neighborhood on the western edge of Los Alamos by late Wednesday afternoon. County officials said all firefighters had been forced to retreat at 4:30 p.m. and were letting the homes burn.
No injuries were reported, officials said. Tom Koch, a National Guard news officer, said troops would patrol and staff roadblocks to prevent looting.
Evacuation centers were set up throughout the day in a casino bingo hall, schools, churches and other facilities in White Rock and other nearby towns. The National Guard opened armories in Santa Fe, Taos and Espanola. The Red Cross put out a call for volunteers and financial contributions. Several hotels offered free or discount rooms.
The National Park Service originally set the fire last Thursday as a ``prescribed burn'' to clear brush and other debris near Pajarito Mountain in the Bandelier National Monument, west of Los Alamos.
But the fire spread out of control in the tinderlike ponderosa pine forests over the weekend and the first 500 homes in Los Alamos were ordered evacuated Sunday night.
While Los Alamos faced disaster, fire victims in Ruidoso, a resort 200 miles south, had better news. A 5,700-acre fire had forced up to 400 people to flee their homes Monday, but the wind eased Wednesday and most residents were allowed to return home.
``We've caught a break,'' fire official Karen Miranda said.
---
Los Alamos burns Officials say nuclear laboratory is safe
USA Today
05/11/00 Page 1A
By Tom Kenworthy USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20000511/2251175s.htm
WHITE ROCK, N.M -- Wildfire swept through Los Alamos, N.M., early today, damaging or destroying homes and businesses in two-thirds of the town and forcing the evacuation of all 11,000 residents.
No injuries or deaths were reported. Smaller fires were sparked on the grounds of Los Alamos National Laboratory where nuclear material is stored. Laboratory officials said the fires could not reach the potentially deadly caches of plutonium and tritium, which are encased in steel and stored in concrete bunkers.
The fire started after Park Service officials set a ''controlled burn'' to remove some undergrowth at the nearby Bandelier National Monument last Thursday.
That fire quickly grew out of control, destroying 4,500 acres of land.
In and around Los Alamos, more than 600 firefighters battled unsuccessfully to contain the blaze, which was fed by high temperatures and 40 mile per hour winds.
A giant plume of smoke filled the night sky and drifted as far north as the Colorado border 75 miles away.
''I don't know if you can be at a higher risk,'' said John Peterson, a spokesman for the Santa Fe National Forest. ''We're losing homes as we speak,'' he said.
Kevin Roark, a spokesman for the Los Alamos National Laboratory, which houses the nation's stockpile of nuclear material, said the lab is ''designed to withstand every catastrophe known to man.''
As of today, the fire had done an estimated $1.7 million worth of damage.
---
Lee Case Fed. Prosecutor Demoted
Associated Press
May 11, 2000 Filed at 8:08 a.m. EDT
By The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Lee-Prosecutor.html
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) -- The federal prosecutor who directed the high-profile investigation and prosecution of a fired Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist has been bumped from the job.
Justice Department officials offered no explanation for the removal of Assistant U.S. Attorney Bob Gorence as lead prosecutor in the Wen Ho Lee case.
Lee, 60, faces trial Nov. 6 on 59 counts of breaching lab security. The prosecution contends Lee transferred 19 files from secure to unsecure computers and downloaded some material to computer tapes. Prosecutors have called the top secret material the ``crown jewels'' of American nuclear science.
Although Lee, who was a nuclear physicist in the weapons section of the lab, has not been charged with espionage, prosecutors contend he planned to forward the data to the Chinese government.
Lee could get life in prison if convicted.
Patricia Chavez, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office in Albuquerque, told The New York Times that Justice had decided to send a prosecutor from Washington to direct the case, but Gorence would continue to be a ``key member of the team.''
Gorence's replacement has not been named.
Lee's defense attorneys applauded the move, saying it would give their client a strategic advantage.
``This is good news for Dr. Lee, as Mr. Gorence was an experienced prosecutor,'' defense attorney Mark Holscher told the Times.
Until March, Gorence was the top-ranking career prosecutor in the Albuquerque U.S. attorney's office. He took charge of the Lee case in early April 1999.
---
Justice Dept. Replaces Prosecutor in Nuclear Secrets Case
New York Times
May 11, 2000
By JAMES STERNGOLD
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/051100prosecutor-demote.html
LOS ANGELES, May 10 -- In a sign of possible turmoil in a highly sensitive criminal case, the Department of Justice has decided to replace at a critical moment the top prosecutor in its case against a scientist charged with mishandling nuclear weapon secrets at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Patricia Chavez, a spokesman for the United States attorney's office in Albuquerque, where the case is being handled, said the department had decided to send from Washington a prosecutor to take control of the case from Bob Gorence, the locally based assistant United States attorney who had been in charge.
Ms. Chavez said Mr. Gorence, an experienced prosecutor who has pursued the case aggressively from its start last year, would remain "a key member of the team" handling the case against Wen Ho Lee, who was charged with illegally downloading top secret data on nuclear weapons.
Seven of the computer tapes on which Mr. Lee downloaded the data have disappeared, and the government has charged that he intended to provide the information to a foreign government, China.
Mr. Lee has vigorously denied the charges and has said he believes he was unfairly singled out for prosecution because he is Chinese-American. The Asian-American community has come together to offer its support, and has contended that he is a victim of racial discrimination. Although Mr. Lee has not been charged with espionage, he is being held under extraordinarily tight security and was twice denied bail.
The change in prosecutors was surprising, in part, because it comes at a particularly sensitive time, when the defense and the government are expected to battle over how much nuclear weapon information can be submitted in the trial. The timing of this move heartened the defense.
"This is good news for Dr. Lee, as Mr. Gorence was an experienced prosecutor," said Mark Holscher, one of Mr. Lee's lawyers.
Mr. Gorence refused to comment.
The trial is not scheduled until November, but the defense has already filed motions to introduce at trial all of the information Mr. Lee is said to have downloaded, and the request is expected to be argued in court in the next couple of months. This could be the pivot around which the outcome of the trial turns, and it now might be handled by someone relatively new to a case that involves abstruse issues of nuclear technology as well as national security.
If the judge rules that the information should be admitted, the government must decide whether to comply. The government has already argued that the information contains "the crown jewels" of the American nuclear arsenal and that releasing it would compromise the country's national security. But if it refused, it would probably have to drop the charges against Mr. Lee.
If the judge rejects Mr. Lee's request, it could weaken his defense, which his lawyers have said rests on his claims that most of the data was already in the public realm, that by itself it was not enough to design a bomb and that it was not that useful without a variety of manuals and other tools not generally available.
Mr. Gorence worked in the United States attorney's office for 14 years. Six years ago he had handed in his resignation because of plans to start a criminal defense practice. But he withdrew the letter after John Kelly, who was then the United States attorney, made him the first assistant United States attorney, the person who effectively runs the office.
Mr. Kelly left his job to run for Congress several months ago, and Mr. Gorence was named the acting United States attorney. But he was ultimately passed over and the Department of Justice nominated another attorney in the office, Norman Bay for the top job. Mr. Bay also replaced Mr. Gorence as his first assistant.
It was unclear whether any of these factors came to play in the decision to replace Mr. Gorence as the lead prosecutor, or even whether Mr. Gorence will remain with the United States attorney's office at this point. But the defense lawyers made it clear that they would not tolerate any delays in the proceedings, and that they would settle for nothing less than the ability to use at his trial all the data Mr. Lee is accused of illegally downloading.
---
Fire Pushed by Wind Forces Evacuation of Los Alamos
New York Times
May 11, 2000
By KENNETH CHANG
http://www.nytimes.com/00/05/11/news/national/alamos-fire.html
Public safety officials ordered everyone out of Los Alamos, N.M., yesterday as intensifying winds sent a week-old fire into the town of 11,000. But officials at the Los Alamos National Laboratory said they were confident that the nuclear material and chemical explosives were protected, even if the laboratory itself started burning.
Police, sheriff's and fire department officials went door-to-door urging people to pack up and get out as quickly as possible. No injuries were reported, but officials said late last night that two-thirds of the structures in Los Alamos had been damaged or destroyed.
The fire command post itself was forced to leave.
"The whole town is burning," Pauline Stone, 73, who has lived in Los Alamos since 1949, said at a Red Cross shelter in White Rock, where she fled with her husband, Roy.
"It's all going to disappear."
President Clinton declared Los Alamos a disaster area.
A plume of smoke 17,000 to 20,000 feet high was covering northern New Mexico and moving east into Texas.
"It'll be in Houston by tomorrow," said Jim Paxon, a fire spokesman with the United States Forest Service.
"The fire blew up, basically," Mr. Paxon said. "It's not safe and there are constant winds, so all air operations have been grounded and all hand crews have pulled back into safe zones."
Crews could not fight the blaze at the line of fire, he said, but would continue to work on its periphery.
Brush fires reached some of the laboratory's far-flung property yesterday, setting ablaze a structure at the Weapons Engineering Tritium Facility, but the flames were quickly put out, officials said.
A power failure caused by fires in the northwest suburbs knocked out pumps supplying some of the firefighters with water. Emergency generators were being rushed in.
Wind gusts up to 41 miles an hour pushed the fire to the east and southeast, toward town. The wind died down to 20 to 25 m.p.h. overnight but is expected to kick up to 50 m.p.h. today.
The fire, called the Cerro Grande fire after the mountain where it started, was set a week ago by the National Park Service in the northwest corner of Bandelier National Monument to clear brush but flared out of control over the weekend.
Fire is always a worry in the dry pine forests that surround the town of Los Alamos and Los Alamos National Laboratory, whose thousands of buildings -- most modern, but a few wooden structures that date to the Manhattan Project of the 1940's -- occupy 43 square miles of canyons and mesas. In 1977, the La Mesa fire burned part of the laboratory grounds, and a 1996 fire, accidentally ignited by campers, devastated some 15,000 acres of nearby forest.
A main area of public concern was Technical Area 55, where the laboratory keeps most of its nuclear materials. The surrounding area was virtually free of trees and other burnable fuel, Mr. Danneskiold said, and was about five or six miles from the nearest firefighting line, and even farther from any blaze.
"It's also a building built to nuclear standards, virtually bombproof," he said. "It supposedly can survive earthquakes, huge fires, airplane crashes and disasters in general."
He said there have been no intact nuclear weapons at the laboratory for 15 years. Non-nuclear explosives are stored in concrete bunkers buried under a couple feet of earth.
"We're pretty confident in those bunkers," Mr. Danneskiold said. "The La Mesa fire burned over the same bunkers, and nothing happened."
But the outlook was critical for the town itself, where residents continued to stream out last night. The western end of town, initially evacuated on Sunday, included 500 homes. A northern section that was evacuated yesterday moments before the blowup also contained 500 homes, firefighters said.
In Santa Fe, hotels where rooms often cost $300 a night, were offering evacuees rooms for $25.
Members of Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, an environmental group in Santa Fe, worried that toxic and radioactive fumes could be released into the air if the fire spread to drums of waste at the laboratory.
"We are concerned the lab is not fully knowledgeable of what is in each drum," said Suzanne Westerly, the group's acting executive director.
Ms. Westerly also said that over the years plants around the laboratory had absorbed radioactive contaminants that were now being released into the air as the plants burned.
But Mr. Danneskiold said that the laboratory continually monitored the air around it and that "there was no evidence of airborne contamination" after the last major fire, in 1996.
The laboratory's radioactive-contaminated waste is stored on a barren area eight to nine miles from the fire, he said, adding, "There's no vegetation in the area to burn."
Mr. Danneskiold said that while the laboratory had been closed since Monday because of the fire, power was on and guards and emergency personnel remained on duty. Security in top-secret areas was being maintained, he said.
---
Los Alamos Burns, Thousands More Flee Today
New York Times
May 11, 2000
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/00/05/11/late/11cnd-fire.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/digest/nd1.htm#fire
http://www.itn.co.uk/World/world20000511/051104.htm
LOS ALAMOS, N.M. -- A firestorm swept through the abandoned streets of Los Alamos today, burning at least 100 homes while frustrated firefighters ran short of water and were forced to retreat.
At least 18,000 people were evacuated from the hilltop community of Los Alamos, including 7,000 this morning in suburban White Rock, where many of the original evacuees had sought safety.
"We weren't ready down here. We were the refugee center for our friends," Kirk Christensen said as he and his wife loaded their camper and headed into a sea of cars crawling down the highway. They took in four Los Alamos families this week, but now are forced to camp outside a friend's house in Santa Fe.
No injuries were reported, but President Clinton declared New Mexico a major disaster area.
At the storied Los Alamos National Laboratory, for the first time shut down by fire, flames singed a research building but it did not ignite. Explosives and radioactive material were protected in fireproof facilities, lab officials said.
"We can assure the country and New Mexico that our nuclear materials are safe," said Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, a former New Mexico congressman.
The fire was set by the National Park Service a week ago to clear brush, but it quickly flared out of control, racing through stands of ponderosa pine as it grew to more than 4,500 acres. Winds gusted to 50 mph Wednesday and forecasters said they could increase today to 60 mph.
Los Alamos, 70 miles north of Albuquerque, is essentially a company town for the federal lab. It sprang up in the 1940s as the base of operations for the Manhattan Project, which built the atomic bomb. There are still military barracks and military-style housing in Los Alamos, along with relatively upscale, newer developments.
Neighborhood by neighborhood, the town burned Wednesday.
House after house filled with fire, glowed like a jack-o-lantern, then exploded in pulsing orange flames. Just after sundown, flames marched to a tree-covered ridge overlooking downtown, lighting the night sky.
Residents of the community built on nuclear research starting fleeing as winds rose in the afternoon, hurling flames into tinder-dry, tree-filled residential areas. Police, sheriff's and fire department officials went door to door among Los Alamos' 6,000 households, telling people to get out.
"This is the first time I felt fear," said Jaret McDonald, a 28-year-old resident who has been evacuated from his home because of fires three times before. "When you're against Mother Nature, you can't contain it. You'll lose every time."
As evacuees fled to shelters, hotels and motels outside Los Alamos, firefighter Sam Schroeder stood outside one flaming home on Sycamore Street.
"This is bizarre -- this house won't be touched," she said, pointing to the house next door. "This one will go all the way to the ground."
The fire was too dangerous to battle head-on, firefighters said. They pulled back as flames advanced. Firefighters even had to move their command post.
"This fire's got a mind of its own," county spokesman Bill Lehman said. Firefighters were reluctant to back off, Lehman said, but "there was just nothing we could do, because of the wind."
"We are in a retreat situation," he said late Wednesday.
Water-dropping helicopters and airplanes dropping pink fire retardant bombarded the blaze, hoping to narrow its westward and northward thrust.
About one-third of the 10,000 residents in western Espanola, in a valley 10 miles below Los Alamos, were advised to evacuate voluntarily, Espanola Mayor Richard Lucero said.
The Los Alamos laboratory declared a general emergency at 11 p.m. Wednesday, saying there were grass and brush fires at three of its research facilities. Its weapons-engineering tritium facility at Technical Area 16 was swept by fire, but the masonry building was left intact, lab officials said.
Public Service Company of New Mexico has shut off natural gas service to the lab, which was closed for the fourth straight day today, along with public schools and county offices.
James Lee Witt, Federal Emergency Management Agency director, planned to tour Los Alamos today, along with Richardson and New Mexico's U.S. senators, Jeff Bingaman and Pete Domenici.
In south-central New Mexico, a fire started Sunday by a campfire burned more than 8,600 forested acres in the Ruidoso area and forced the evacuation of several neighborhoods.
The fire, primarily in the Lincoln National Forest, was 35 percent contained by late Wednesday.
Another fire flared up some 50 miles northwest of Los Alamos in the Santa Fe National Forest.
The blaze, first reported Wednesday morning, was burning in mixed conifer trees at the edge of the Jicarilla Apache reservation, said Travis Moseley, a U.S. Forest Service range and watershed staff member.
He said this morning that he did not know how many acres had been burned.
----
Homes, Lab Grounds Burn in Los Alamos
By Cat Lazaroff
May 11, 2000 (ENS)
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/may2000/2000L-05-11-06.html
LOS ALAMOS, New Mexico, A wildlife has swept into the New Mexico town of Los Alamos, consuming hundreds of homes and posing a continuing threat to nuclear materials stored at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
The fire on Tuesday, burning through stands of Ponderosa pines (Photo courtesy KRSN)
Firefighters thought they had the fire under control yesterday, but gusting winds flung sparks and flames across fire lines to set off blazes in the town and on the grounds of the laboratory, the nation's largest nuclear weapons facility.
Early Wednesday, Los Alamos fire response spokesman Jim Paxon said firefighters would have difficulty preventing the fire's spread. "If we can hold our lines today, we'll consider it a victory," said Paxon.
By midnight Wednesday, during a press briefing in White Rock, about 10 miles southeast of Los Alamos, Paxon acknowledged that the fire had gotten away. "This fire is going to go where it wants to," he said. "There are embers being thrown a mile ahead of the fireline."
"My worst fears were realized. I didn't think a fire could move that fast," said lab official Dick Buric.
All 11,500 residents of Los Alamos were evacuated Wednesday, and evacuations are underway in the nearby towns of Espanola and White Rock. As many as two thirds of the homes in Los Alamos have been destroyed or damaged.
A lone firefighter watches over a burnout fireline at the edge of the Pajarito Mountain ski area outside Los Alamos (Photo courtesy KRSN)
On Wednesday, President Bill Clinton declared a state of emergency and a federal disaster area in the counties of Los Alamos, Sandoval and Santa Fe.
At a press conference today in New Mexico, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, Federal Emergency Management Agency Director James Lee Witt, U.S. Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck and New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson assured the public that every effort is being made to protect nearby towns.
But Governor Johnson noted that those efforts are dependent on wind conditions. "Now we are at the mercy of the weather," Johnson said.
Today's regional forecast calls for continued hot, dry weather, with strong wind gusts reaching up to 60 miles per hour. Wednesday's winds reach a top speed of just 35 miles per hour.
Although flames engulfed one concrete weapons testing building on Wednesday, lab officials say dangerous materials including plutonium and high explosives are secured in concrete and steel bunkers, and will not be affected by the fire.
"All lab buildings are secure," said Richardson, "All nuclear materials are safe. We're here to address the human tragedy."
Map of the Laboratory property showing West Jimez Road, the Anchor sites and S-Site where nuclear and explosives tests are conducted. (Map courtesy LANL)
Lab officials say plutonium is stored in the lab's northeast corner, across the compound from the fire.
The fire was set Friday in the Bandelier National Monument as a prescribed burn to reduce the amount of small trees and brush that might fuel a runaway forest fire. Chris Judson, spokesperson for the National Park Service, told ENS the fire got away when the wind unexpectedly changed direction.
The U.S. Forest Service said today that 18,000 acres have now been consumed by the fire.
"I share everybody's frustration that this has happened because of a controlled burn," said Governor Johnson. "This entire policy needs to be reviewed."
-------- tennessee
(Only took a little over a month to get them to print it...Glenn)
In re: April 5 meeting of DNFSB
Your Views, 5-11-00 From: wheezin2@aol.com
http://www.oakridger.com/ ,
To The Oak Ridger:
I would like to add to the sentiment expressed in a recent letter to the editor, on the timeliness and effectiveness of publication of letters.
Exactly a month ago the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board held what I perceived as a largely negative public meeting. I responded the following day with a letter to the DNFSB, and also submitted it as a letter to the editor.
This letter was confirmed by The Oak Ridger, and publication later promised by the outgoing editor, as soon as space allowed. This has still not happened despite a similar letter, in the same format being published a few days after the meeting. I would hope this letter receives a more timely response.
My comments to the board reflected my sense of negativism from the same, escalating in an exchange of words between the board chairman and a DOE whistleblower.
It was, and is, my opinion, that the head of a national oversight group, responsible for "independent oversight" of the Department of Energy should not have allowed the exchange to escalate. I found it in especially poor taste for the chairman to publicly advise a member of the audience on how to raise his children.
Also, as I prepared to make my own presentation, the meeting was ended, with no call for additional comments or speakers. I had previously submitted written comments to the DNFSB on the issues, but had hoped for the opportunity to present them to the community.
My comments would have noted the "chilled atmosphere towards safety" described throughout the DOE complex.
There have been areas of improvement, but the fatalities at ETTP and Idaho Falls, recent DNFSB findings, and the NaK explosion at Y-12 underscore the need for more effort in improving safety.
Also noted in my comments was the fear of reprisal for speaking out on health and safety related issues. This has improved somewhat, but if the DNFSB and inspector general's office do not hear these issues, they will assume there is no problem.
I have concerns of my own career stability for speaking out, but with the health and safety of the workers and community at possible risk, I feel it must be said.
This is a correctable situation, if all involved work together. I did not see this effort at the DNFSB meeting last month.
Glenn Bell 504 Michigan Ave.
----
DOE may put brakes on metal recycling
by Larisa Brass
Oak Ridger staff
May 11, 2000
http://www.oakridger.com/
A decision being considered by Department of Energy headquarters could put a stop to the recycling of all radioactively contaminated metals at the Oak Ridge K-25 site, according to a DOE official and the local congressman.
In January, Energy Secretary Richardson issued a decision to halt the recycling of nickel, permeated with traces of radioactivity, from K-25.
The local DOE office expects Richardson to issue a two-year moratorium on the sale of metal with surface contamination to commercial recyclers, Clayton Gist, DOE team leader for waste management, told members of the Local Oversight Committee's Citizen Advisory Panel at its monthly meeting Tuesday.
"Basically there has been a draft memo out, and we're fully expecting a final memo out," said Gist in a telephone interview.
But DOE spokesman Steven Wyatt said, "The statement made by Clay Gist at the LOC meeting regarding metals recycling issues was inaccurate. It appears that Mr. Gist was misinformed on this issue."
However, Helen Hardin, chief of staff in the office of U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-3rd District, confirmed that sources within DOE headquarters have indicated that Richardson is seriously considering calling a halt to surface-contaminated metal recycling.
"This proposal is a great threat to reindustrialization," said Hardin. "I do know that it's a serious proposal."
Hardin said she didn't know when a final decision might be made. "Sometimes it happens fast and sometimes it's months," she said.
DOE's metal recycling program has been the target of a lawsuit by a union and environmental groups and of criticism by the steel industry. They say that the free release of metal with radioactive contamination could put at risk the American public, who could be exposed by using ordinary household items like forks and spoons or batteries.
Richardson's original decision dealt with what's known as volumetrically contaminated metals in which radioactive contamination can be found throughout the metal. The decision blocked the commercial sale of the metal, mostly nickel found at K-25 and at DOE's Paducah, Ky., site, until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could develop a release standard for metal with volumetric contamination.
While the state had approved a process for removing most of the contamination from the local storehouse of nickel, no national standard for the process exists.
The new moratorium would apply to metal with radioactive contamination on its surface only. DOE has been recycling the metal under its own guidelines for release, but the new decision would require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop a standard for the release of surface-contaminated metal as well.
Locally, the moratorium would have the largest impact on an effort by DOE contractor British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to clean out three large buildings at the K-25 site, where the agency once enriched uranium for nuclear weapons, said Gist. BNFL officials have said they expect to recycle about 100,000 tons of steel and other metals from inside the buildings.
"The short-term big player is BNFL," said Gist. But work in the cavernous K-25 building could also be impeded by the decision. "In that two-year period, if we started cleanup and the (decontamination and decommission) of the K-25 building, it would affect that," he said.
The biggest problem, said Gist, would be what to do with the metal.
Some of it can be reused by DOE. For example, he said, local recycled metal will be used to create shielding blocks for the Spallation Neutron Source, a research accelerator planned for Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
But for the rest of the scrap, he said, "the bottom line is it looks like we will either put surface-contaminated metal in storage until the moratorium will be released or we will dispose of it."
Susan Gawarecki, executive director of the Local Oversight Committee, said she found the possible moratorium troubling.
"I can't understand why DOE would do that," she said. "It's like they're shooting themselves in the foot.
"They've got to get a lot of the metal out of the K-25 building. If they can't recycle it, you end up losing money" and delaying the cleanup process, she said.
On the other hand, Dan Guttman, a lawyer who represents the Paper, Allied-industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers union, said a moratorium on recycling surface-contaminated metal "would be stunning." The union and environmental groups have been urging DOE to halt the commercial release of volumetrically and surface-contaminated metal at its sites.
"We'll see what happens," he said. "I'd love to see it."
What's needed, said Guttman, is a publicly debated, publicly approved policy for releasing the metal. Americans aren't paranoid about trace amounts of radiation in their household products, he said. They are concerned about the government overseeing itself.
"There's a lot of questions raised about the institutional competence of the Department of Energy's contractors in the release process," he said.
At DOE headquarters, a spokeswoman said a task force set up by Richardson to examine the DOE metal recycling program expects to release its results in the near future, although she offered no specific date.
Currently, she said, "no policy decision has been made."
----
Bill seeks to assist federal workers
Local and state briefs
May 11, 2000
Knoxville News-Sentinel
http://www.knoxnews.com/archives/browserecent/05112000/archives/8878.shtml
WASHINGTON -- Two Tennessee members of Congress are backing identical bills to double to $200,000 the lump sum federal payments proposed for current and former workers at Oak Ridge and other federal energy facilities who became ill from exposure to dangerous materials.
Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., and Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., are backing either the House or Senate version of the bill to increase the lump sum. The Clinton Administration earlier suggested $100,000 lump sum payments or other compensation based on lost wages.
Also, the new bills would cover more illnesses from dangerous exposures than the Clinton plan, and would guarantee that workers could get both the lump sump and full medical coverage for past treatment of their illness.
Wamp said he initially will support all bills to help sick workers and then try to shape the best compromise. Thompson called the new bills "a good starting point for discussions."
-------- utah
SARIN GAS RELEASE FORCES SHUTDOWN AT TOOELE
TOOELE, Utah, May 11, 2000 (ENS)
AmeriScan: May 11, 2000
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/may2000/2000L-05-11-09.html
The U.S. Army is investigating a release of trace amounts of GB nerve gas, also known as sarin, on Monday at the Tooele Chemical Agent Facility (TOCDF) in Utah. An alarm alerted the facility to a sarin release in the TOCDF incinerator stack at a level above the Utah Department of Environmental Quality permit limit. Incinerators at TOCDF are used to dispose of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile, including about 12 million pounds of sarin. The Army, which did publicize the accident until Wednesday, says that there were no injuries or chemical exposures as a result of the accidental release. The facility was evacuated and shut down. The Army says furnace temperatures in the stack were sufficient to destroy any sarin that might have been present in the system. The Deseret Chemical Depot's perimeter monitors were analyzed and showed no detectable level of agent reached the Depot boundaries.
At the time of the alarm, no processing of chemical weapons was taking place. Processing of GB had been suspended about two hours prior to the alarm. The Army has assembled a team of experts to investigate the accident. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been asked to conduct an independent evaluation. Representatives of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality are on site to monitor the situation. The plant will remain shut down until the cause is determined and corrective actions are taken. By the end of April, about 8.8 million pounds of sarin had been destroyed at Tooele. Sarin is a colorless and odorless gas, which is lethal to adults at a dose of 0.5 milligram. The facility plans to switch next year to burning some 2.7 million pounds of VX, an even more lethal chemical weapon.
-------- washington
DOE FIRES BNFL, PLEDGES NEW CLEANUP EFFORTS AT HANFORD
May 11, 2000 (ENS)
AmeriScan: May 11, 2000
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/may2000/2000L-05-11-09.html
SEATTLE, Washington, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has announced new commitments to the state of Washington to clean up nuclear waste in aging tanks at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. "I remain committed to cleaning up the tank waste at Hanford," said Richardson, following a meeting Wednesday with Washington Governor Gary Locke and Attorney General Christine Gregoire. "This agreement today is a significant step forward towards continuing to work with the state of Washington to make that happen." Hanford holds approximately 60 percent of the nation's nuclear waste.
On Monday, the Department of Energy (DOE) terminated a contract with British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) Inc. because BNFL's proposal had doubled in price. However, the DOE says its commitment to cleaning up the tanks remains firm. The DOE has now made a five part commitment to Washington state. The five point plan amends the existing cleanup agreement to include two new goals. By August 2000, the DOE will issue a Request For Proposal for a new design and construction contract asking for proposals that would enable the department to meet existing 2007 deadlines. By January 15, 2001, the department will award a new cleanup contract. Over the next 15 months, the DOE and the state will attempt to negotiate a new consent decree establishing further commitments aligned to the new contract. The Energy Secretary will ban shipments of waste to Hanford from new sources while the department works to get the new contract on firm footing. The state and the DOE will continue to talk about longer term commitments regarding the shipment of waste into the state. Both parties have agreed to engage the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a discussion about how to realign cleanup commitments for the entire Hanford site to ensure that they are achievable and to address the most important problems first.
----
Agreement Reached on Hanford Cleanup
May 10, 2000
By The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/a/AP-Hanford-Agreement.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/news/oregonian/00/05/nw_52rndup11.frame
http://www.spokane.net/news-story-body.asp?Date=051100&ID=s801458&cat=
SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) -- A federal judge may oversee the cleanup of some of the Hanford nuclear reservation's most dangerous nuclear wastes under an agreement reached Wednesday by Gov. Gary Locke and Energy Secretary Bill Richardson.
They will seek a consent decree in federal court to govern the cleanup of 177 underground nuclear waste storage tanks. The Energy Department, citing cost overruns, this week fired the company that was to design and build a plant to treat the wastes.
The tanks, one-third of which are leaking, contain wastes left over from the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons. They are considered one of the nation's most pressing environmental problems.
Locke and Richardson also agreed that nuclear wastes containing low levels of radiation will not be shipped to the Hanford reservation until the Department of Energy selects a new company to build the plant to treat the tank wastes. That selection will likely occur in January.
A private contractor called BNFL, Inc. was supposed to design and build the so-called vitrification plant. But Richardson fired the company this week after cost estimates for the work rose from $6.9 billion to $15.2 billion.
The 560-square-mile reservation contains the nation's largest volume of radioactive waste from nuclear weapons. Hanford is 120 miles southwest of Spokane.
-------- us nuc waste
For the Record
Washington Post
Thursday, May 11, 2000; Page M08
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-05/11/146l-051100-idx.html
Here's how some major bills fared recently in Congress and how local congressional members voted, as provided by Thomas's Roll Call Report Syndicate. NV means Not Voting.
For the Record
NUCLEAR WASTE VETO
For: 64 / Against: 35
The Senate failed to override President Clinton's veto of a bill to permanently store the nation's nuclear waste near Yucca Mountain, Nev., 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Supporters needed 67 votes to defeat the veto and pass the bill. A yes vote was to enact the bill.
-------- us nuc weapons
U.S. weighs deep cuts in atomic arms
In exchange, Russia would have to allow missile shield be built
By John Diamond
Chicago Tribune Staff Writer
May 11, 2000 12:32 a.m. CDT
From: "Viviane Lerner" <vlerner@interpac.net>
WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration is considering proposing deep cuts in the nation's nuclear arsenal-well beyond what has been previously disclosed-in hopes of persuading Russia at next month's Moscow summit to drop its objections to a U.S. missile defense system.
White House and Pentagon officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Wednesday that President Clinton is pushing for a breakthrough proposal to bring to the June summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Secret gatherings of top military commanders in the Pentagon's secure "Tank" room are examining the proposal, which would drop the U.S. arsenal to between 1,500 and 2,000 long-range nuclear warheads. Currently the arsenal is roughly 6,500 warheads. The cuts being studied by the Pentagon would bring the U.S. nuclear arsenal down to levels of the 1950s. If Clinton advances the proposal, it would bring Washington close to the level that Moscow wants to reach in the newest round of strategic arms reduction talks. Russia is mainly motivated by financial reasons.
The Clinton proposal would come with a catch: Russia would have to agree to amend the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to allow for the U. S. to build a limited missile defense system.
Even if Russia accepted, the U.S. would be a long way from a drastically reduced nuclear arsenal.
Key leaders of the Republican-controlled Senate, notably Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), have said they would block any new arms reductions Clinton negotiates in his last year in office. Republicans in the House and Senate say any U.S. missile defense that Russia could accept would be weak and ineffective.
Clinton has given the task of examining the implications of far deeper weapons cuts to Adm. Richard W. Mies, head of the U.S. Strategic Command, the military post based at Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., that oversees the nation's nuclear arsenal. Mies met Tuesday with Army Gen. Henry Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and is scheduled for more meetings this week, a senior defense official said.
The U.S. and Russia have agreed to cut their long-range nuclear arsenals roughly in half, down to between 3,000 and 3,500 warheads, under the START 2 treaty just approved by the Russian legislature.
Under a new round-START 3-Russia has proposed going down to between 1,000 and 1,500 warheads. Moscow has frankly admitted it can no longer afford to maintain a large nuclear arsenal. To date, the Clinton administration has said publicly it will go no lower than 2,000 to 2,500 warheads. As the summit approaches, Clinton is pushing to find deeper cuts.
"They would like to have the U.S. government position on START 3 negotiating settled before the summit," the senior defense official said. "We're now in the 1,500 to 2,000 bracket."
A White House official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said officials "are examining the implications of Russia's proposal" to drop to as few as 1,000 warheads.
On Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, said well-placed officials in U.S. intelligence had told him the Clinton administration was planning to offer Moscow a deal. Weldon said Clinton was preparing to offer unilateral cuts in the U.S. arsenal down to as few as 1,500 warheads in exchange for Russia's agreement to a limited U.S. missile defense system.
Administration officials told the Tribune that no unilateral proposals are being considered, but they did not discount the notion that the administration considering deeper cuts than it has publicly acknowledged.
"Our long-standing policy is to seek further stabilizing and verifiable reductions in Russian and U.S. strategic nuclear arsenals," the White House official said.
The preparations for the Moscow summit are bound up in domestic and international politics and in nuclear strategy.
The U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals reached such high levels because both had strategies based not only on destroying enemy cities, but also on taking out enemy missile silos.
As the possibility of such a cataclysmic nuclear exchange fades, a growing group within the U.S. and Russian governments argues that a strategy based on mutually assured destruction requires far fewer warheads. The idea is that the threat of destroying even a few major cities is now enough to prevent either side from starting a nuclear war.
The national missile defense Clinton is considering is designed to stop relatively small-scale missile attacks of the kind North Korea or Iran might launch. Moscow fears the Pentagon will eventually expand the defense to where it could undermine the threat posed by a shrinking Russian nuclear arsenal.
Some retired senior military figures and arms reduction negotiators have even argued in recent months that the U.S. could eliminate its nuclear arsenal completely without imperiling national security.
Arms-control advocates have chided Clinton for excessive caution and slow progress on arms reduction, and Putin has stolen the limelight from Clinton on arms control with his recent success in winning the Russian legislature's approval for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the START 2 arms cuts.
Pressuring Clinton from the opposite direction are GOP lawmakers who want an extensive anti-missile system.Despite this pressure, Clinton may be in a strong negotiating position next month. Russia is desperate to cut its nuclear arsenal and save money.
----
Clinton Hits Bush on Environment
Associated Press
May 11, 2000 Filed at 1:24 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/p/AP-Clinton-Interview.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton said today that Gov. George W. Bush, if elected president, would let polluters control the nation's environmental policy and appoint Supreme Court justices who would reverse the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion.
Moreover, Clinton said, Bush would press for big tax cuts and higher Pentagon spending that would bring back budget deficits and higher interest rates. ``It will mean that we won't have much money left over to invest in education or the environment or health care,'' the president said.
Clinton noted that Bush opposed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was defeated by the Senate last year, and said the governor ``wants to build a much bigger missile defense system than the evidence warrants right now.'' He suggested Bush's positions could affect efforts to reduce nuclear stockpiles around the world.
``So I think that gives me some pause,'' the president said. ``I think that's troublesome.''
Clinton leveled his criticism in an interview with Diane Rehm of radio station WAMU. It was his most pointed attack yet against the likely Republican presidential nominee.
Replying to Clinton, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said, ``It appears that he is continuing his transition from commander in chief into his role as campaign manager in chief.''
McClellan defended Bush's stand on missile defenses, saying, ``Governor Bush believes it is important to protect America and Americans from rogue missile launches, and he is concerned that the president and vice president do not agree with this urgent priority.''
Clinton also said Republicans in Congress opposed him so vigorously because they resented what they felt was harsh treatment of GOP presidents when the Democrats controlled the House and Senate.
``So they thought it was pay-back time,'' he said. ``But the overwhelming reason is that they resented the fact that they didn't have the White House.
``They thought that they owned the White House, and they thought they had found a formula that would always keep Democrats out of the White House. They would say we couldn't be trusted on the economy and foreign policy and national defense and welfare and crime, and we were going to tax people to death. ... And when it didn't work, I think they were very angry.''
Clinton criticized Bush when asked to describe how Bush or Vice President Al Gore would change things if elected president.
``If Governor Bush gets elected, I think he'll do what he said he would do,'' the president said. ``I think it's not necessary to attack these people personally.''
He said that if Bush wins the White House, ``He will do what he did in Texas, he will let the people who basically are the primary polluters control environmental policy.''
The next president will name two to four Supreme Court justices, because of expected vacancies, Clinton predicted.
``And if they (Republicans) get two to four appointments on the Supreme Court, I think Roe vs. Wade (the 1973 abortion decision) will be repealed and a lot of other things that have been a part of the fabric of our constitutional life will be gone.''
Bush has said he opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or when a woman's life is in danger. He has said he would nominate ``strict constructionists'' to the court -- taken by some to mean justices open to abortion restrictions.
Reflecting on his personal life, Clinton said his eight years in the White House have been good for his marriage ``because I got to live above the store.''
Having the family living quarters so close to his office meant more family time when daughter Chelsea was living at home, and more time to relax alone with first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, the president said.
``You can get busy and drift apart, I guess, in any circumstances,'' Clinton said. ``But for us ... we've probably had more time together in our time here than at any point in our marriage, and I've enjoyed that immensely. It's been wonderful for us.''
Rehm did not ask Clinton about his affair with Monica Lewinsky or the impeachment battle that followed.
---
Pentagon Feels Pressure to Cut Out More Warheads
New York Times
May 11, 2000
By ERIC SCHMITT
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/global/051100russia-us-arms.html
WASHINGTON, May 10 -- The Pentagon is assessing the risk to national security of cutting its nuclear arsenal to 2,000 warheads under an arms-reduction treaty with Russia, a step that could help President Clinton broker a missile-defense deal with Moscow before he leaves office, administration officials say.
The highly classified review has been under way for months, but it has intensified in recent weeks in advance of Mr. Clinton's scheduled summit meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin early next month in Moscow.
On Thursday, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commander of the strategic arsenal, Adm. Richard W. Mies, will hold the latest in a series of meetings in the "tank," a supersecure conference room in the Pentagon, to gauge the effects of deeper cuts.
In two weeks, the findings and recommendations are expected to be sent to Mr. Cohen and to Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for final approval before the assessment is delivered to Mr. Clinton in preparation for the Moscow meeting.
"We're trying to get a better understanding of the risk at the lower numbers and whether we can still meet the deterrent strategy," said a senior Pentagon official involved in the study. "It's a prudent thing to do with the summit coming up."
The American strategic nuclear arsenal includes 7,200 warheads. Russia has 6,000.
In Helsinki three years ago, Mr. Clinton and Boris N. Yeltsin, who was then president of Russia, agreed to cut the number of long-range warheads on each side to no more than 2,000 to 2,500 by the end of 2007 by negotiating a third strategic arms reduction treaty, Start III.
The two leaders reaffirmed their pledge in June in Cologne, Germany, although Russia is pushing for both countries to go even lower, to 1,500 warheads.
Despite the official American negotiating position that Start III levels range from 2,000 to 2,500 warheads, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have always said they would need at least 2,500 warheads to carry out the nation's nuclear war plan, which is thought to include thousands of individual targets on potentially hostile territory. The new review is testing whether that assumption continues to hold.
Start III has become a bargaining chip for the administration, which has offered to carry it out if Moscow agrees to what American officials describe as modest changes to the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. Those changes would allow the United States to field a limited missile defense system that administration officials say is intended to protect the United States against missile strikes from countries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea or an accidental launching from a superpower.
But Russia opposes such a defense, leaving administration officials searching for ways to enhance the incentives for Moscow to change its mind. Part of the solution may lie in lower Start III force levels.
"The overall purpose is to take stock of how it all plays out, and if there is any chance of potentially lower numbers," said a second senior Defense Department official involved in the assessment.
For now at least, the review is confined to examining the risks at various levels in the 2,000-to-2,500 range, administration officials said. "We are not looking outside the range, and no one has come to us yet with pressure to say, we need to go below those numbers," said a third senior Pentagon official.
But some White House and State Department officials are asking what military officials consider leading questions going down to 2,000 and slightly below what Pentagon officials call "the red line." Some American arms negotiators believe that if the review finds that the military could fulfill its strategic deterrent mission with 2,000 warheads, then diplomats could finesse the differences with Russia and propose a range of 1,500 to 2,000 warheads.
"What we're seeing is an attempt on the part of the administration to accommodate the Russians without having to change the definition of deterrence," said one former top military officer who is wary of deeper reductions.
"Two thousand warheads was the absolute most painful level for the military. Now they're going back, I'm afraid, and taking the floor and using it to make a new ceiling."
The assessment and its potential implications have divided the government. Some civilian experts in the Defense Department, State Department and National Security Council are open to deeper cuts. The Joint Chiefs of Staff is opposed to reductions that they believe could hurt national security and set off -- not discourage -- a new arms race.
"The chiefs are concerned about arms reductions that reduce the flexibility in the strategic deterrence and put at risk maintaining all three legs of the triad," said Capt. Steven R. Pietropaoli, a spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The triad is the fleet of submarines, bombers and long-range missiles that carry nuclear weapons.
One way that the Pentagon is considering reducing the Start III levels, at least on paper, is through the arcane counting rules for nuclear weapons. At any given moment, not all submarines are at sea or bombers on alert. Military officials are considering whether to count, at least in one measure, only those nuclear weapons that are ready to perform the mission. That could reduce the Start III levels by 200 to 300 so-called "phantom" warheads, administration officials said, and approach the 2,000 figure at the lower end of the range.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff are also weighing various combinations of submarines, bombers and long-range missiles -- called the force structure -- to see if the nuclear deterrent can be maintained at lower overall numbers.
Some American military officials argue that for cost reasons, Russia is reducing its strategic forces.
Alexei Arbatov, deputy chairman of the Russian Parliament Defense Committee, said at a conference here this week that if Russia were forced to keep Start I levels (6,000 warheads), it would cost $33 billion over 10 years; at Start II levels (3,000 to 3,500 warheads), $26 billion over 10 years; and at Start III levels, $14 billion over 10 years.
"We've been involved in discussions with the Joint Staff about various alternatives, none of which I'm permitted to talk about," said Capt. Ron Morse, a spokesman for the United States Strategic Command, which Admiral Mies heads.
By law, the United States is required to maintain at least the levels of Start, signed by Washington and Moscow in 1991 and in force since 1994, until Start II goes into effect. Start II was signed in 1993 and approved by the Senate in 1995, but it was not until last month that the Russian Parliament gave its own backing to the accord. And the Senate still has to vote on ratifying several protocols to Start II before it goes into effect.
On Capitol Hill, Republicans and Democrats are sharply divided over the proposed deeper reductions.
Representative Curt Weldon, Republican of Pennsylvania, accused the administration today of considering unilateral cuts down to 1,500 warheads, a position that the White House denied.
"This is all part of a rush to have Bill Clinton do something that he hopes will capture the imagination of the American people," Mr. Weldon said in an interview. "but it's not rooted in substance."
The House Armed Services Committee rejected today, 40 to 17, a proposal by Representative Tom Allen, Democrat of Maine, to permit the Pentagon to reduce unilaterally its strategic forces to Start II levels before the treaty actually enters into force.
The Pentagon supports such a measure. The military estimates, for example, that maintaining the 50 Peacekeeper missiles that are retired under Start II will cost $1 billion through 2007.
Many Senate Democrats, including Carl Levin of Michigan and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, say the country can maintain a nuclear deterrent with far fewer than 2,000 to 2,500 weapons.
"You can sustain a lower number politically, provided that number is viewed not as a political number, but as a security number coming from the people responsible for security planning," Mr. Levin recently told the Arms Control Association. "But if it is done as something that is done politically, it will not have the kind of support that it should."
---
Joint Chiefs oppose Russian plan to cut 1,000 U.S. warheads
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 11, 2000
http://208.246.212.80/national/default-2000511225718.htm
The Joint Chiefs of Staff are opposing a Russian plan favored by the White House to cut the number of U.S. nuclear warheads by 1,000 in time for President Clinton's summit meeting in Moscow later this month.
The Russia Duma, after years of delay, ratified the START II arms treaty last month, which calls for reducing U.S. and Russian arsenals to between 3,000 and 3,500 warheads.
Both sides have agreed to further cuts as part of a new START III accord. President Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin agreed to a START III "framework" at the Helsinki summit in March 1997 that would reduce each side's arsenal by 1,000 warheads to between 2,000 and 2,500 warheads.
Russia's proposed cut of 1,000 warheads would come on top of the framework figure.
Administration officials said yesterday the chiefs and the U.S. Strategic Command favor keeping the number of warheads at the figure agreed upon at the 1997 summit.
Adm. Richard Mies, commander of U.S. strategic nuclear forces, held meetings with the military service chiefs on Monday and Pentagon policy-makers yesterday. He informed Pentagon leaders that the U.S. Strategic Command needs about 2,500 warheads to execute its nuclear deterrence and war-fighting missions.
Another meeting on the strategic arms issue will be held today inside the Pentagon's "tank," as the secure conference room is called.
The administration is preparing its internal position for Mr. Clinton's visit to Moscow. The president is expected to speak to a session of the Russian legislature, the Duma.
The Clinton administration is debating the Russian proposal and is trying to come to agreement on how to respond to the Russians in time for President Clinton's Moscow visit, which begins May 29.
A senior military official said the Department of Defense, the military chiefs and field commanders "are in the process of getting their positions together as we go into the next round of negotiations" with the Russians.
"I think right now the chiefs want to stick with the 2,500 number," the official said.
"What we're seeing right now is discussions within this department - that I'm sure are going on right now at [the State Department and the White House National Security Council] - on how we're going to set the stage for the new round of talks," the military official said.
Another question being debated by military and civilian leaders is whether deeper strategic nuclear arms cuts "get linked to the ABM" - the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that the administration needs to change in order to deploy a limited national missile defense in the next several years, the official said.
Moscow is opposing any deployment of a U.S. nationwide missile defense system.
Defense officials said the White House and State Department want to accept the Russian proposal for deeper cuts since the Russian nuclear arsenal is expected to fall below 2,000 warheads as a result of aging weapons systems and a lack of money for Moscow to build new missiles.
Asked if the president favors the Russian plan for deeper cuts, a White House official would say only that "we are examining the implications of Russia's proposal" for warhead levels of 1,000 to 1,500.
"Our long-standing policy is to seek further stabilizing and verifiable reductions in Russian and U.S. strategic nuclear arsenals through the START process," this official said.
Pentagon and White House officials denied there are any plans for Mr. Clinton to make a unilateral decision to cut U.S. nuclear arsenals from current levels to the warhead ceiling proposed by Russia.
Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican and a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, said he was told by Pentagon officials that Mr. Clinton was working on just such a "presidential nuclear initiative."
He sharply criticized any attempt to make the cuts without consulting Congress.
"My understanding is that the president's nuclear initiative would unilaterally reduce the arsenal by half," Mr. Weldon said in an interview.
Mr. Weldon said the committee defeated an amendment yesterday to this year's defense authorization bill that would give Mr. Clinton greater authority to cut U.S. nuclear forces.
Mr. Weldon also said that the administration is considering deeper nuclear arms cuts without even completing an assessment required under law to gauge strategic nuclear stability under a future START III agreement.
"They have not even briefed Congress, and they have not done that assessment," Mr. Weldon said.
"I am dismayed and alarmed that the Clinton administration would be proposing unilateral action on the part of the U.S. that could undermine both America's security and the strategic balance between the United States and Russia," he said.
"By negotiating an agreement with Russia they know they can't get through the Congress, they are causing a split between the United States and Russia. This president has no credibility to negotiating this kind of arms control agreement just to reinvigorate the failed Russia policies of this administration and to help Al Gore's presidential campaign."
The Russians also are seeking to change the START II ban on multiple-warhead missiles, one of the key benefits of the treaty, defense officials said.
A Senate defense aide said the administration would be giving away U.S. negotiating leverage by agreeing to the Russian plan for deeper warhead reductions.
"Russian force levels are going down anyway, yet this administration insists on giving up U.S. strategic offensive force structure that we need in exchange for a [national missile defense] proposal that is just short of worthless," the aide said. "It's Clinton arms control policy at its worst. It is a desperate move by a president desperate for a place in arms control history."
---
Physicist Group Says Missile Defense Tests Fall ´Far Short´
New York Times
May 11, 2000
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/051100sci-missile-defense.html
The American Physical Society, the world's largest group of physicists, Wednesday faulted the Pentagon's test program for its anti-missile defense system as "far short" of what the president needs to make an informed decision about whether the proposed weapon can actually shoot down enemy warheads.
The criticism comes as the Pentagon presses ahead with an interception test set for June and President Clinton prepares to decide afterward if the nation should build a limited defense against missile attacks by rogue states. Its cost is estimated at up to $60 billion.
The group zeroed in on what it called meager testing of possible ways an enemy might outwit the proposed weapon system, which would consist initially of 100 ground-based interceptors.
The United States, it said, should make no decision to build a National Missile Defense unless it is shown "to be effective against the types of offensive countermeasures that an attacker could reasonably be expected to deploy with its long-range missiles." Such demonstrations, it said, could be achieved through analysis and interception flight tests.
So far, the group added, the tests that the Pentagon has conducted and plans to carry out in the time before the president's decision "fall far short of those required to provide confidence" in the technical feasibility of the weapon system.
The physics group, based in Washington, in its brief statement made no specific recommendations on what kinds of tests the Pentagon should do prior to a deployment decision. The statement was posted Wednesday on the group's Web site, www.aps.org.
A Pentagon spokesman said the group had ignored "literally a mountain" of anti-missile research.
"We're very confident that our test data will allow the president to make an informed decision," said Lt. Col. Richard Lehner of the Air Force, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
The anti-missile flight test scheduled for June is the fifth in a series bedeviled by delays. Two of the experiments were target flybys, one succeeded in hitting a mock warhead and one failed.
Lehner said 17 more tests are to be performed before 2005, when the proposed system is to be switched on. Data from these experiments, he added, will help designers improve the weapon.
To date, targets in the interception tests have consisted of a single mock warhead and a single decoy balloon. The Pentagon says it plans to increase decoy complexity in future tests.
Last month, a 175-page study by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Security Studies Program of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said that an enemy could easily fool the anti-missile system with swarms of fake and disguised warheads.
Prominent friends and foes of the proposed anti-missile system have asked the Clinton administration to delay a decision on whether to build it until after the November elections.
The American Physical Society, which represents more than 42,000 physicists, said the anti-missile statement was adopted by its 48-member council on April 29, during its annual meeting.
The statement, it said, does not imply that the group has taken a position on the wisdom of an anti-missile deployment, only its technical viability.
-------- us politics
Clinton Launches Attack Vs. Bush
Thursday May 11
By TERENCE HUNT,
AP White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Clinton took on the role of political attacker Thursday, charging that George W. Bush would pursue ``troublesome'' nuclear-arms policies as president, let polluters regulate the environment and appoint judges bent on repealing abortion rights.
In his toughest criticism yet of the presumed Republican presidential nominee, Clinton also contended that Bush would bring back budget deficits and higher interest rates by pushing big tax cuts and Pentagon spending increases.
Bush's campaign shot back that Clinton was ``continuing his transition from commander in chief into his role as campaign manager in chief'' for Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic candidate.
With Gore trailing in the polls, Clinton opened up on Bush in a radio interview with Diane Rehm of National Public Radio. While Clinton often has professed reluctance to be dragged into the presidential race, he jumped in enthusiastically.
Gore increasingly is turning to surrogates for help in attacking Bush, as some advisers fear that the vice president's own full-throated criticisms are backfiring with voters who say they don't like negative campaigning. Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala criticized the governor's health care plans Tuesday.
``What the president is pointing out is something that Al Gore has pointed out, other Democrats have pointed out and other analysts have pointed out,'' said Gore spokesman Chris Lehane.
Singling out national security policies, Clinton noted Bush's opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the Senate defeated last year.
Moreover, Clinton said Bush ``wants to build a much bigger missile defense system than the evidence warrants right now - it may support it later - no matter what the consequences are to the efforts we're making to reduce the nuclear weapons threat around the world.
``So I think that that gives me some pause,'' the president said. ``I think that's troublesome. Because it could cause the country a lot of trouble in the next four or five years.''
Returning the fire, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said, ``Governor Bush believes it is important to protect America and Americans from rogue missile launches, and he is concerned that the president and vice president do not agree with this urgent priority.''
Clinton is to decide later this year whether to deploy a national anti-missile system that the Pentagon estimates would cost $30 billion.
Turning to other areas, Clinton said Gore would help the economy grow and would expand environmental cleanup efforts while Bush would ``do what he did in Texas. He will let people who basically are the primary polluters control environmental policy.''
To that charge, McClellan said, ``Texas is leading the nation in reducing toxics, and industrial emissions are down 11 percent under Governor Bush.''
Clinton said the next president would fill two to four seats on the Supreme Court as expected vacancies come open. He said Gore would appoint diverse judges committed to individual liberties and ``in the mainstream of American constitutional history.'' But he said Bush would appoint judges ``more like the ones appointed by the previous Reagan and Bush administrations.
``And if they get two to four appointments on the Supreme Court, I think Roe vs. Wade will be repealed and a lot of other things that have been a part of the fabric of our constitutional life will be gone,'' Clinton said.
Bush says he opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. He has said he would nominate ``strict constructionists'' to the court - taken by some to mean justices open to abortion restrictions. McClellan said it means justices ``who will interpret law and not make law from the bench.''
----
White House lobbying hard for China
USA Today
05/11/00
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncsthu03.htm
WASHINGTON (AP) - After being repeatedly blocked from obtaining the ''fast track'' negotiating authority needed to strike new trade agreements, the Clinton administration has been using significant resources to win permanent trade status for China, congressional auditors say.
An investigation by the General Accounting Office has found the White House used about 150 staffers, including 100 from the Agriculture Department, as part of the China Trade Relations Working Group, a command center dedicated to securing congressional approval for ''permanent normal trade relations'' status for China.
The working group includes 10 principal members, five presidential advisers, plus the Secretary of State, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Commerce, Agriculture and Treasury secretaries, the auditors said. The remaining staff come from various agencies and departments and work from a few hours to full-time.
The auditors also identified 19 trips taken between January 29 and March 1, in which the president, one of the working group principals, or another administration representative spoke on behalf of China trade relations. An additional 19 trips had been planned from March 4 through April 29.
Rep. Frank R. Wolf, R-Va., a vocal critic of human rights abuses in China who opposes permanent trade status, said he requested the investigation after learning about the group's ''war room,'' the command center which could influence congressional debate before a House vote on China's trade status during the week of May 22.
Wolf said he was concerned the White House violated a law that prohibits the use of congressional appropriations to lobby lawmakers. However, the statute allows executive branch officials to request legislation ''which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business.''
In a letter to Wolf dated Monday, the GAO said they haven't completed their review and couldn't determine if any law had been violated.
A review of working group documents did show extensive outreach and coordination by the administration with outside groups such as public corporations and trade coalitions, the auditors said.
Daniel Cruise, a spokesman for the working group, said the administration has a legitimate role in promoting its China policy.
''We are confident that our efforts have been well within the rules for advocating administration policies,'' he said.
The White House, along with the Agriculture and Commerce departments, presented their staffing and travel information to the GAO, but were unable to provide a total of their expenses, the GAO said. The Treasury and Labor departments have also been involved and are still compiling their staffing and travel information.
-------- us toxics
U.S. Toxic Pollution 3 Times Worse Than Thought-EPA
Thursday May 11 5:33 PM ET
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000511/ts/environment_toxics_2.html
By Patrick Connole
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. mining and electric utility industries are the worst U.S. toxic-chemical polluters, according to a more sophisticated analysis released by U.S. regulators on Thursday that showed such pollution is three times worse than previously thought.
For the first time, electric utilities and mining facilities were included in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) annual toxic inventory report in an expanded report that includes seven industrial sectors.
Some 7.3 billion pounds of toxic materials were dumped into the environment in 1998, the last year for which data are available -- a figure three times that of the previous measure, according to the EPA report which was designed to inform communities about potential health risks from industry.
Activists said the new EPA data revealed that as much as 63 percent of the new total comes from the mining and electric utility industries.
``We now have a much more comprehensive record of toxics in our environment,'' said Bradley Campbell, EPA's regional administrator in Philadelphia. ``As we expand and refine the toxics reporting process, we raise public awareness and our ability to make more informed environmental decisions.''
EPA Administrator Carol Browner, speaking during the Washington news briefing at which the report was released, said that the tripling of toxic-chemical pollution shown in the new, expanded, analysis did not surprise her.
``Thousands of citizens, communities and businesses across America will have access to this data on the Internet and from other sources. As in the past, they will work with their elected officials and local industries toward the goal of achieving cleaner and healthier neighborhoods,'' Browner said.
Mining facilities were at the top of the toxic inventory list, reporting 3.5 billion pounds of toxics in 1998.
Mines released both toxic heavy metals dredged up in the mining process as well as the caustic materials added to ores to leach out the minerals recovered, U.S. Public Interest said.
Electric utilities' emissions of sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid pushed them near the top of the toxic inventory in many states.
In West Virginia, American Electric Power Co Inc. (NYSE:AEP - news) was the state's biggest toxic polluter, emitting more than 41 million pounds of acid aerosols from fuel combustion and metals, the EPA said.
Baltimore Gas & Electric, a unit of Constellation Energy Group Inc. (NYSE:CEG - news), had the highest toxic pollution of any company in Maryland, releasing 11.4 million pounds.
Pennsylvania's biggest polluter was a plant owned by AK Steel Holding Corp. (NYSE:AKS - news), which released 31.7 million pounds of toxic chemicals, mostly nitrates, to surface water from steel cleaning. The company has begun to install an alternative process that will reduce emissions, the EPA said.
``This is the first year that electric utilities and mining facilities have been included in the inventory, together releasing 63 percent of all reported releases,'' said U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer advocacy group.
Citing EPA data, the group said U.S. electric utilities released 1.1 billion pounds of toxics in 1998. That included air emissions of hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid and hydrogen fluoride, among other substances, it said.
The toxic inventory report was first established in 1985 by a federal law that aimed to give more information to communities about plants operating locally. It requires U.S. facilities in certain industries to report toxic releases and wastes for about 600 of the most potentially dangerous substances.
Manufacturing plants had been the only facilities required to report toxic emissions until the EPA issued regulations in 1997 requiring seven more types to report, including electric utilities, mines and commercial hazardous waste facilities.
A statement from the Edison Electric Institute, the trade group representing the nation's shareholder-owned utilities, said the chemical release data from EPA is consistent with previous industry estimates reported to the public last June.
While supporting the community right-to-know process, the EEI said analyses have shown the utility releases are not a health hazard, citing a 1998 EPA report to Congress and recent paper by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.
``Both of these analyses show that the electric utility releases studied do not pose a significant risk to public health,'' said Paul Bailey, EEI vice president for environment.
-------- genetic engineering
Altered Food: To Label or Not?
New York Times
May 11, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/letters/l11fda.html
To the Editor:
Re "The F.D.A. Chickens Out" (Op-Ed, May 8): Andrew Kimbrell's arguments in favor of mandatory labeling of gene-spliced foods are specious. Such labels would imply that the buyer needs to be warned of unspecified dangers, would inflate production costs and hurt the environment by forcing more pesticide use and more cultivation of land for farming.
Since 1992 the F.D.A. has required extra risk assessment and risk management (including labeling) when safety issues are raised in foods from new plant varieties.
Moreover, with regard to food labeling, there is no consumers' "right to know." A federal appeals court, invalidating a Vermont law that required milk labels to disclose the use of bovine somatotropin (a protein that increases the productivity of dairy cows), found that the labels were a constitutional violation of commercial free speech.
HENRY I. MILLER, M.D. Stanford, Calif., May 9, 2000 The writer was head of the F.D.A.'s Office of Biotechnology, 1989-93.
To the Editor:
Andrew Kimbrell (Op-Ed, May 8) is right to criticize the Food and Drug Administration for refusing to require the labeling of genetically modified foods, but the agency's announcement may be even worse for consumers than he suggests.
In 1994 the F.D.A. pressured dairy producers who told consumers they would avoid genetic engineering to add a label disclaimer. Dairies using a modified hormone had no labeling requirement. But some dairies that followed F.D.A. guidelines for unmodified milk suffered legal challenges to their labels.
Now, the agency says it will develop guidelines to ensure that "label claims concerning the biotechnology status of foods" will not be misleading. It would be bad news for consumers if the agency took the same backward approach that it took with milk.
CHARLES MARGULIS Baltimore, May 8, 2000 The writer is a genetic engineering specialist at Greenpeace.
To the Editor:
Re "The F.D.A. Chickens Out," by Andrew Kimbrell (Op-Ed, May 8): A mandatory label indicating genetic modification raises questions about the safety of biotech foods that have been reviewed and found safe.
A National Academy of Sciences panel has "found no distinction between the health and environmental risks posed by plants modified through modern genetic engineering techniques and those produced by conventional breeding practices."
The F.D.A. has a policy in place that requires labeling if products of biotechnology differ from traditional products in terms of composition, nutritional content or allergenicity. Mandatory labeling is reserved for health and safety issues, while voluntary labeling is a way for the marketplace to help consumers determine which features and benefits they prefer.
C. MANLY MOLPUS President and Chief Executive Grocery Manufacturers of America Washington, May 9, 2000
Posted
without profit or payment for research and educational
purposes only,
in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.