------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
Prepared Remarks by Samuel R. Berger
Missile shield allows 'no role' for politicians
Four Nuclear Power Stations to Generate Electricity in Next Five Years
The issue explained Depleted uranium
The ministry that hides from truth
NATO bombs taking a terrible toll in Bratunac
Belgrade: NATO contaminated our land
U.N. urges more radiation tests
UK uranium warning fuels debate
Danger signs to go up at uranium sites
UN Urges Wider Uranium Studies in Kosovo, Bosnia
Declare Depleted Uranium a Radioactive Waste say Councils
Britain Dismisses Own Report Backing Uranium Risk
Panel Suggests Giving Russia $30 Billion to Protect Arms
Nuclear Items Sold by Russia to Iran Pose an Obstacle
Russia seen relying on nuke, germ weapons
Elite Nuclear Forces Opening to Reservists and the Guard
PREPARED REMARKS FOR U.S. SECRETARY OF ENERGY BILL RICHARDSON
Energy Department Worker Compensation Program
Put Off Missile Defense
Elite Nuclear Forces To Be Opened
Rumsfeld Faces Senate Quiz on Missile Defense
Reactors In The USA Have Cracked Shrouds
Government Releases List Of Nuke Sites
Energy audit of nuclear fuel cycles
University May Keep Running U.S. Labs
Calif. Narrowly Averts Blackouts
California to Shut Off Power for Millions
Nuclear Plant Was Restarted Too Fast, Con Ed Says
Rumsfeld, Bush Agendas Overlap Little

MILITARY
Iraq Is Focal Point as Bush Meets With Joint Chiefs
Britain Dismisses Own Report on Uranium Risk

OTHER
FDA: Feed makers violating mad-cow rules
NEWS OF OTHER LIFE FORMS
Genetically modified monkey created

ACTIVISTS
Activists Step Up Plans For Inaugural Protest
China Frees Canadian Falun Follower From Camp

-------- NUCLEAR

Prepared Remarks by Samuel R. Berger to the Council on Foreign Relations,

US Newswire
Jan. 11, 2001
To: National Desk
Contact: White House Press Office, 202-456-2580
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0111-136.html

WASHINGTON, -- The following was released today by the White House:

As Prepared for Delivery

REMARKS BY SAMUEL R. BERGER ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS

THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS NEW YORK, NEW YORK

January 11, 2001

In nine days, I will end my tenure as National Security Advisor grateful for the opportunity President Clinton and the American people have given me to serve at this extraordinary moment in our history; grateful for the challenge of helping shape a new foreign policy for a new time. I appreciate this forum tonight to look back on these past eight years and, just as important, to look forward to the challenges ahead.

Let me begin with the year just ended. It has been an extraordinary one -- not just because of the prominence of Chad, a country I always thought was underestimated, but also because of the number and nature of international events of profound significance to the United States. In China, a communist leadership negotiated a far-reaching, market-oriented WTO agreement with us, opening doors to economic and potentially political change that will be hard to shut. In Russia, citizens stood in line for hours, not for bread as they did in 1992, but to carry out that nation's first democratic transition in more than 1,000 years. In Mexico, an opposition party candidate was elected president for the first time in more than 70 years, hastening a new era of multi-party democracy and vibrant partnership just south of our border.

In Ethiopia and Eritrea, the most deadly conflict in the world since the Iran-Iraq war ended with active American mediation. In Bosnia, five years after the peace we negotiated at Dayton, the process of reconstructing one nation, thought impossible by many, gained momentum -- with 63 percent more people returning to their homes across ethnic lines than a year before. Meanwhile, democracy captured every inch of the former Yugoslavia for the first time as Slobodan Milosevic fell like a 50-foot statue of Stalin, a victim of the accumulated outrage of his people and the cumulative pressure of the West. In Vietnam, 35 years after the most divisive war of the 20th century, crowds ten deep lined the streets to reach out to an American President. In India, after 50 years of icy estrangement, the visit of a President offering respectful partnership was transforming and 90 percent of Indians now say that a new day had dawned between us. And in Dundalk, Ireland, a border town that not long ago was a violent symbol of the Troubles, more than 50,000 Catholics and Protestants stood together with the President in their town square and sang "Danny Boy" with one resolute voice.

Of course, the year 2000 had its share of tragedies and disappointments as well. Sitting at the Norfolk Naval Base with survivors of the senseless attack against the USS Cole only reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western terrorists. And despite all the progress we have made in the Middle East, it will be sad indeed if the promise of this unusual moment of history slips into the abyss of violence. But I know this: sooner or later, hopefully before too much more bloodshed and tears, Israelis and Palestinians will have to return to the same questions they confront today, and, I believe, the same inescapable choices. They can postpone the moment of truth, but they cannot escape the reality that they must find a way to live side by side on the same soil, in the same land.

The scope of events over this past year reflects the range of challenges and opportunities for America that sometimes appears overwhelming. It is tempting to step back from robust engagement, to simplify our presence in a complex world, to limit our definition of what is important to America to what seems most easily achievable. That would be a profound mistake. For the threats to America's interests only will grow more dangerous if neglected. More important, this is a time of unprecedented opportunity for us, as we stand at the height of our power and prosperity. Tonight I want to talk about how we have used America's renewed strength and the challenges that lie ahead.

Any honest assessment must begin with an acknowledgment of what has changed since Bill Clinton was first elected. Consider the conventional wisdom about America in the fall of 1992: Time Magazine -- reflecting the widespread view -- asked: "is the U.S. in an irreversible decline as the world's premier power?" We had handled the Gulf War, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany skillfully, but the premise that had defined our foreign policy for a half century -- what we opposed -- no longer illuminated our path. We were left in the early 90's to define America's role in terms of what was ending -- a "post-Cold War" policy. The Clinton Administration's task was to renew America's international leadership in terms of what we were building -- to shape an American foreign policy for a global age. Historians may debate the choices we made. But I believe there is no disputing their cumulative outcome.

As President Clinton leaves office, America is by any measure the world's unchallenged military, economic and political power. The world counts on us to be a catalyst of coalitions, a broker of peace, a guarantor of global financial stability. We are widely seen as the country best placed to benefit from globalization.

President Clinton understood before most the sweeping impact of globalization and the fundamental challenges it posed to how we think about the world. Let me describe just two. First, for a half century of Cold War struggle, we viewed the world largely through a zero-sum prism. We advance, they retreat. We retreat, they advance. But in an increasingly interdependent world, where all lives are shaped every day by forces in every corner of the world, zero-sum increasingly must give way to win-win. A stronger Europe does not necessarily mean a weaker U.S. Indeed, a stronger Russia and a stronger China -- if they develop in the right way -- could be a lesser threat than if they unravel from internal strains.

Second, while globalization is an inexorable fact, it is not an elixir for all the world's problems. It is not inherently good or bad. But what is important is that we can harness the desire of most nations to benefit from globalization in a way that advances our objectives of democracy, shared prosperity and peace.

Some of the most hopeful recent developments in the world have come about because of how we sought to do that, not because globalization preordained them. For example, if China has begun to dismantle its command and control economy despite the huge risk, is it simply meeting the demands of global markets? In part, yes. But it also has decided to fulfill the terms we negotiated for its entry into the WTO. If people from Croatia to Macedonia are rejecting hard line nationalists and embracing democracy, is it because they've reached the end of history? No -- but they have concluded that this is the best way to join NATO and the EU -- an opportunity made possible by our expansion of NATO and more attractive by NATO's victory in Kosovo.

If the dividing line of the Cold War was the Berlin Wall, the dividing line of the global age is between those who seek to live within the international community of nations -- respecting its rules and norms -- and those who live outside of it, either by choice or circumstance. We must ensure those international systems, be they on non-proliferation or trade or human rights, are open to all who adhere to accepted standards. We must defend those standards when they are threatened. And we must isolate those who choose to live outside the system and disrupt it.

These are the foundations of a foreign policy for the global age. They are reflected in the principles that have guided us these last eight years and which hopefully will serve as a touchstone as our next president takes office.

The first principle is that our alliances with Europe and Asia are still the cornerstone of our national security, but they must be constantly adapted to meet emerging challenges. Eight years ago in Asia, it was far from certain that we would maintain our military presence at the end of the Cold War, or that allies there would continue to see its legitimacy. In Europe, NATO's continued relevance was seriously questioned, ironically at the very same time that the security and the values it defends were threatened by an out-of-control war in Bosnia.

When we took office, we had no more urgent task than to adapt our alliances to a new era. So in Asia, we formally updated our strategic alliance with Japan. We stood with South Korea to meet nuclear and missile threats while we moved together to test new opportunities with North Korea. We dispatched naval forces to ease tensions in the Taiwan Straits, and helped our allies deploy an unprecedented coalition to East Timor.

In Europe, we revitalized NATO with new partners, new members and new missions. After agonizing differences with our allies over Bosnia, we came together to use force and diplomacy to end a ghastly war and later acted decisively to end the carnage in Kosovo. Today, we are closer than ever to building a Europe that is peaceful, democratic, and undivided for the first time in history.

So where do we go from here in Europe? Let me start with the unfinished business in the Balkans. Southeast Europe, which has been a flashpoint for European conflict throughout the 20th Century, now has the potential to become a full partner in a peaceful Europe -- if we don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Our European allies already are carrying the overwhelming share of this burden, 85 percent of the peacekeeping troops and 80 percent of the funds. But we can't cut and run, or we will forfeit our leadership of NATO.

NATO's future, and that of Europe's new democracies, also depends on the answer to another question: will more of Europe's new democracies be invited to walk through NATO's open door at its next summit in 2002? To stop at Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic would defeat the very purpose of NATO enlargement -- which is to erase arbitrary dividing lines in Europe and to use the magnet of NATO membership to strengthen the forces of democracy in Europe.

Then there is the question of how we keep our partnership with traditional European allies strong through changing times. We should support Europe's efforts to assume greater security responsibilities -- so long as our European friends move forward in cooperation, not competition, with NATO. And, we must devise new mechanisms to deal with significant trade disputes like GMOs and FSC and subsidies in ways that do not jeopardize a $1.4 trillion per year economic relationship. A strong America and a stronger Europe is good for us and the world.

A second principle that guides our foreign policy in a global age is that peace and security for America depends on building principled, constructive relations with our former great power adversaries, Russia and China.

With Russia, it is tempting to focus on what this troubled country has failed to do in the last decade. It has not developed a full feathered democracy, or demonstrated consistent respect for the rule of law. It has not rooted out corruption, or learned that brute force cannot hold an ethnically diverse country together. But we should not forget what it has done. Defying the predictions of many, the Russian people have rejected a return to communism or a turn toward fascism; in five straight elections they have voted for a democratic society with a market economy that is part of the life of the modern world. And it is in large part for that reason that we have been able to work with Russia to reduce and safeguard its nuclear arsenal, to secure the exit of its troops from the Baltic States, and to cooperate in the Balkans.

What now? I believe that President Putin wants to build a modern Russia plugged into the global economy and that he realizes the only outlet lies to the West. What we don't know yet is whether he will do that while tolerating opposition, respecting the independence of his neighbors and conducting a foreign policy that does not revert to the Soviet era mentality.

What can we do? If Russia seeks to exert coercive pressure against neighboring states like Georgia or Ukraine, we must do all we can to strengthen their independence. If it continues to provide military technology to nations like Iran, we must use our leverage to change its behavior. But at the same time, when Russia seeks partnership with the international community and membership in international institutions, from the G-8 to the WTO, we should welcome it, insisting that Russia accept the rules as well as the benefits that go with integration. And when the Russian people work at home to build a free media, to start their own businesses, to protect their environment, we must continue to support that, not cut back programs to assist those efforts as the Congress has done in recent years. For little else will be possible in our relationship with Russia unless it builds a pluralistic, prosperous society inexorably linked to the West.

With China, our challenge has been to steer between the extremes of uncritical engagement and untenable confrontation. That balance has helped maintain peace in the Taiwan Straits, secured China's help in maintaining stability on the Korean Peninsula, and allowed us to negotiate an historic agreement to bring it into the World Trade Organization.

That deal and passage of PNTR represents the most constructive breakthrough in U.S.-China relations since normalization in 1979. For China, it is a declaration of interdependence, and a commitment to start dismantling the command and control economy through which the communist party exercises much of its power. It also means that China now faces imposing challenges. Already, roughly 100 million Chinese are out of work. As it opens its markets to competition, there inevitably will be more dislocation and urbanization, and greater pressures on the government to give people a say in decisions that affect their lives.

Can China manage this economic transition at a time of uncertain political transition? For a country seized by a history of intermittent disintegration, will China seek stability in greater control over its people, or in giving its people greater control? Only China can decide. But we can help it make the right choice -- by holding it to the commitments it made to join the WTO, and continuing to make clear that we believe China is more likely to succeed in this information age by unleashing the creative potential of its 1.2 billion people than by trying to suppress it.

A third principle that must guide American foreign policy is that local conflicts can have global consequences. I don't believe any previous President has devoted more of his presidency to peacemaking -- whether in the Middle East, the Balkans or Northern Ireland, between Turkey and Greece, Peru and Ecuador, India and Pakistan, or Ethiopia and Eritrea. We have never pretended we can solve every problem. But we have rejected the simplistic idea that because we can't do everything, we must, for the sake of consistency, do nothing.

Looking ahead, I believe it is more important than ever that America remain an energetic peacemaker -- not a meddler, but a force for reconciliation even, at times, where our interests are not directly involved.

Why? Because the challenge of foreign policy in any age is to defuse conflicts before, not after, they escalate and harm our vital interests. And this is even more true in this global age. Today, as we witness distant atrocities, we can choose not to act, but we can no longer choose not to know. And while we should never send troops into conflict where our national interests are not at stake, when our interests and values are challenged, the American people increasingly expect their government to do what we reasonably can. Those who ignore America's idealism are lacking in realism.

What's more, the disproportionate power America enjoys today is more likely to be accepted by other nations if we use it for something more than self-protection. When our president goes the extra mile for peace -- as he has been doing in the Middle East, as he did in Belfast last month, or in Africa last August when he joined a fractious conference seeking peace in Burundi -- it defies preconceptions that an all-powerful America is a self-absorbed America. It earns us influence that raw power alone cannot purchase. It is profoundly in our interest.

A fourth principle is that, while old threats have not all disappeared, new dangers, accentuated by technological advances and the permeability of borders, require expanded national security priorities. Indeed, I believe one of the biggest changes we have brought about in the way America relates to the world has been to expand what we consider important.

We intensified the battle against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Information about North Korea's nuclear weapons program, for example, had been available since the late 80's. But it was not until 1994 that we negotiated the Agreed Framework, which has frozen the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons in North Korea. America took little notice of Iraq's development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons until after the Gulf War. Now we are diverting billions of dollars in Iraqi oil revenues from the purchase of weaponry to the provision of food and medicine.

Our work with Russia and its neighbors led to the complete denuclearization of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan; the elimination of hundreds of tons of nuclear materials; and tighter controls to prevent smuggling. We persuaded the Senate to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. I genuinely hope President Bush will work with the Senate to address the concerns many had with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, as former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Shalikashvili has suggested.

Going forward, one of the most important decisions America must make is how to meet the future ballistic missile threat from hostile nations. That future threat is real and we must take it seriously. But National Missile Defense is an intensely complicated issue -- technically, internationally and strategically. I hope the new Administration will not be driven by artificial deadlines as it considers the best course. And it is inconceivable to me that we will not fully explore the initiative with North Korea and the potential of curbing the missile program that is at the leading edge of the threat driving the NMD timetable today.

A fifth principle that should continue to drive our foreign policy is that economic integration advances both our interests and our values, but also increases the need to alleviate economic disparity. During the last eight years, America has led the greatest expansion in world trade in history, with the completion of the Uruguay Round, the creation of the WTO, and the approval of NAFTA and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. Our conscious decision to keep our markets open during the Asian financial crisis, despite inevitably increasing trade deficits as a result, in no small measure is responsible for the recovery of the Asian economy, which again is fueling global growth.

In the last two decades, more people have been lifted from poverty around the world than at any time in history. And yet, three billion people around the world still struggle to survive on less than $2 a day. Open markets alone will not close this gap when half the children in the poorest countries still are not in school. Investment flows alone will not reduce it when infectious diseases still cause one in every four deaths in the world. The Internet will not narrow it when half the world's people have yet to make a telephone call. The passage of time alone can only widen it, with the world's population expected to rise by 50 percent to 9 billion by 2050.

Globalization did not create the gap between the rich and poor nations. But there is a gap in globalization. And to dismiss global poverty and disease as 'soft' issues is to ignore hard realities. Few nations can survive the onslaught of AIDS that already has hit southern Africa, where half of all 15 year olds are expected to die of the disease. And this epidemic has no natural boundaries -- its fastest rate of growth is now in Russia.

Working to bridge the global divide is not merely a matter of national empathy; it is a matter of national interest. The global system that creates prosperity for Americans is not sustainable in the long term if billions of people decide they have absolutely no stake in it. That is why we have lowered barriers to African and Caribbean imports, tripled funding for global AIDS prevention and care, and launched international initiatives to stimulate vaccine research and get children into school. That is why we have led the global effort to relieve the debts of poor countries that invest the savings in their people. But this is just a foundation to build upon.

Keeping these issues at the top of the global agenda will require Presidential leadership -- to close the gap between what the world spends and what the world needs to fight infectious diseases like AIDS; to mobilize global funding toward the ultimate goal of universal education; to help more countries qualify for debt relief. The alternative is a world that will be bitterly and violently divided a generation from now.

These are basic principles that I believe must define the contours of America's role in a global age. The overriding reality is that American leadership, in cooperation with our friends and allies is essential to a more secure, peaceful, and prosperous world.

Our extraordinary strength is a blessing. But it comes with a responsibility to carry our weight, instead of merely throwing it around. That means meeting our responsibilities to alliances like NATO and institutions like the UN. It means shaping treaties from the inside, as President Clinton recently did with the International Criminal Court, instead of packing up our marbles and going home, as the Senate did with the CTBT. Otherwise, we will find the world resisting our power instead of respecting it. When our friends call us a "hyperpower" we should not apologize. But to remain strong, we must be a hyperpower they can depend on.

We must remember that there is a difference between power and authority. Power is the ability to compel by force and sanctions, and there are times we must use it, for there will always be interests and values worth fighting for. Authority is the ability to lead, and we depend on it for almost everything we try to achieve. Our authority is built on qualities very different from our power: on the attractiveness of our values, on the force of our example, on the credibility of our commitments, and on our willingness to listen to and stand by others.

In the last eight years, I believe President Clinton's most fundamental achievement is that he steered America into a new era of globalization in a way that enhanced not only our power but our authority in the world. I have been proud to be part of this journey. Now, a new Administration takes the reins. It begins with great challenges, but also with the great advantage of a country at the zenith of its power, with the wind at its back, and clear objectives to steer toward. I can promise you this: as the new Administration seizes this opportunity, nobody will work harder than its predecessors to turn common goals to reality.

---

Missile shield allows 'no role' for politicians
Need for instant decision would leave war-or-peace judgment to U.S. military

Ottawa Citizen
01/01/11
David Pugliese The Ottawa Citizen
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/010111/5081191.html

Two minutes and 50 seconds.

That's how long military commanders operating a U.S. missile defence shield could have to decide whether the image on their radar screens was an enemy warhead racing toward North America or simply a harmless scientific research rocket before ordering it destroyed.

There would be no time to consult with the president of the United States. And the rapid speed of missile defence certainly wouldn't give any time to confer with a Canadian prime minister, even if the Canadian Forces were to have a role in the controversial system.

The decision whether Canada and the U.S. could be at war, in theory at least, would rest in the hands of military commanders, according to missile shield critics. Just how fast the proposed missile defence system would work was highlighted by an American general for Canadian officials, including then Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy, as they toured the North American Aerospace Command centre in early 1999, according to documents obtained by the Citizen.

The scenario involved a limited missile attack by North Korea against Alaska. American Brigadier General Steve Farrell told Mr. Axworthy it would take only nine minutes and 13 seconds between the launch and impact of the missile, according to a Canadian report of the briefing.

Those operating the missile shield would have two minutes and 50 seconds to make a decision whether the attack was real and whether to respond. The shield's ground-based interceptor rockets would then have six minutes and 23 seconds to reach the incoming warhead and destroy it.

Missile shield critics warn that type of situation doesn't allow for politicians to be consulted and sets a dangerous precedent in putting the military in control of a weapon system that has the potential to set off a war.

"Even if Canada signed on to national missile defence, Canadian politicians would have no role or say in the system at all," said Bill Robinson, a defence analyst for the disarmament group, Project Ploughshares.

Missile shield supporters, however, note the lack of direct consultation with political leaders on whether to fire the interceptor rockets is a small price to pay considering the potential consequences of an attack on North America.

Depending on where a missile is launched from, and where military tracking computers predict it is headed, the length of time to make a decision to intercept an incoming warhead would be extended well beyond the two minute and 50 second mark.

Even still, U.S. military officials readily acknowledge that missile defence does not give time to consult government leaders. The decision whether to launch the missile shield's interceptor rockets would be in the hands of the commander-in-chief, or CINC, of U.S. Space Command.

"There's not enough time to call back and say, 'Can I shoot?' " Vice-Admiral Herbert Browne, deputy commander of U.S. Space Command, acknowledged at a news briefing last year. "There's going to have to be special trust and confidence placed in the hands of the CINC."

The U.S. president, and presumably the Canadian prime minister, would be informed later of the decision to launch the interceptors. The Canadian government has yet to decide whether to take part in the proposed U.S. missile shield, which would be designed to protect North America from ballistic missile attacks by countries such as North Korea and Iraq. It would also protect against the accidental launch of missiles by countries such as Russia.

Prime Minister Jean Chretien has said Canada needs more answers whether there is a valid threat before agreeing to take part in the system.

Some at the Pentagon and in the Canadian Forces would like to see the missile shield run by the joint Canadian-U.S. North American Aerospace Defence Command, or NORAD. The defence command has an American commander, who is also in charge of Space Command. A Canadian general is deputy commander of NORAD.

Defence Minister Art Eggleton acknowledged the speed of missile defence technology means "more rapid consultation" but said it is premature to comment on such issues as Canada has not yet decided to take part in U.S. system. "If we get involved in this program, those will be things that have to be discussed," he said.

Pre-set rules of engagement, which dictate when the interceptors could be used by the military, could be put in place if the missile shield is built, say some defence analysts. Jim Fergusson, deputy director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba, says involving politicians in the direct decision-making process has changed because of the nature of the missile shield.

During the Cold War, the U.S. president was directly involved because any response to a missile attack on North America meant retaliation involving nuclear weapons. With the proposed missile shield, the ground-launched interceptor rocket is designed to destroy incoming warheads by smashing into them while they travel in space. No nuclear weapons are involved.

Mr. Fergusson notes it is up to nations to give advance notification about launches of rockets so as to avoid accidental confrontations. Some, such as North Korea, have ignored such protocols.

But Mr. Fergusson acknowledged that if a U.S.-Canadian missile defence interceptor destroyed a rocket, either by accident or as part of responding to an attack on North America, then, in principle, a state of war could exist with the nation that launched the rocket.

Mistakes also happen even when a country is informed in advance about a rocket launch. In 1995, the launch of a scientific rocket from Norway sent Russia's nuclear missile system on alert. Russian commanders believed their country was under a surprise attack and were reportedly about four minutes away from unleashing their nuclear arsenal before realizing the rocket was harmless. According to other reports, computer malfunctions in 1979 and 1980 created the impression in the U.S. military that their country was under missile attack. The malfunctions were discovered with about eight minutes to go before the decision point to launch a retaliatory strike.

President-elect George W. Bush is advocating a missile defence system that is even faster than previously proposed under the Clinton administration. It would destroy a missile within the first five minutes of its launch during what is known as its boost phase. That could be done by placing missile interceptors on ships lingering off shore of countries such as North Korea and Iraq.

But critics point out that within that short window of time it would be almost impossible to determine what exactly the missile was being used for; either to launch a satellite into space or a warhead at Washington.

-------- china

Four Nuclear Power Stations to Generate Electricity in Next Five Years

Thursday, January 11, 2001
By PD Online staff member Huang Ying
People's Daily (China)
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200101/11/eng20010111_60177.html

Currently, altogether four nuclear power stations are under construction in China, and they are planned to generate electricity within five years. According to the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), the proportion of homemade equipment for these nuclear power stations will gradually increase and finally will reach 80 percent.

The four nuclear power stations respectively are the 2nd-phase and 3rd-phase projects of Qinshan nuclear power station in Zhejiang Province, Tianwan nuclear power station in Lianyungang, Jiangsu Province, and Ling'ao nuclear power station in Guangdong Province. Except for the two generating units of Tianwan nuclear power station are scheduled for business operations respectively in 2004 and 2005, the other three stations will produce power before 2003.


-------- depleted uranium

The issue explained Depleted uranium
In a ground-breaking policy change, the Ministry of Defence is set to announce that medical tests will be carried out on tens of thousands of Gulf and Balkan military veterans, to check for possible contamination caused by depleted uranium shells used by British and allied forces.

The Guardian
Thursday January 11, 2001
Derek Brown explains Depleted uranium: an interactive guide http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/uranium/flash/0,7365,420455,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uranium/story/0,7369,419882,00.html

What is DU and what is it used for? Depleted uranium is essentially a waste product of nuclear power generation. It is mildly radioactive and, more importantly, immensely dense. It is installed in tank-busting shells, which it helps to punch through even modern high-tech armour.

Does that make the shells nuclear weapons? Strictly, no. They are classed as conventional munitions. But even so, the heat and blast they generate cause horrific injuries, especially in the confined space of an armoured vehicle. And there are persistent worries about the effects of low-grade radiation, and what the World Health Organisation calls the "chemical toxicity" of the weapons.

How often are they used, and where? Apart from training exercises, DU shells have been fired in anger in two main conflicts: Operation Desert Storm in the Gulf in 1991, and more recently in the Balkans.

How many were fired? More than 100,000 DU shells were fired during the Gulf war, to knock out Iraqi armour and strongpoints. More than 30,000 rounds were fired by Nato forces during the 1999 Kosovo conflict, most of them by US tank-busting A10 ground support jets. Around 10,000 rounds were fired in operations around Sarajevo in the latter stages of allied operations in Bosnia.

What side-effects have been suffered by allied personnel? There lies the controversy. The British and US governments have long denied that DU ammunition is harmful, although since Labour came to power in 1997, the Ministry of Defence has been chivvied into providing more information to serving and former service personnel. Up to this week, however, the authorities have resisted calls for thorough and wideranging tests on soldiers who were literally in the firing line.

What do the veterans themselves say? The British Gulf Veterans and Families Association has for years called for systematic testing. It claims that "hundreds" of Gulf warriors have died of cancers and other illnesses contracted during active service.

And the Ministry of Defence? It has conducted its own survey of the 53,462 servicemen who were deployed in the region during the Gulf war. As of November 1999, it has established that 413 individuals have since died. The cause of death is known for 387 of them. They include 56 cases of leukaemia and other cancers, and 67 suicides or apparent suicides.

Why is the Ministry about to change its tune? There has been a swelling chorus of concern among ex-service personnel, and in the nations which contributed forces to the Gulf and Balkan conflicts, about apparently abnormal death rates. Italy has launched an inquiry into the illnesses of 30 soldiers, five of whom have died of leukaemia. Germany is to review all cases of leukaemia in the military. Portugal is screening 10,000 personnel who served in the Balkans, and Norway has offered checkups to 20,000 soldiers.

What does the USA say? The Pentagon is sticking to the line that DU may not be good for you, but isn't especially harmful either - except, of course, if it's fired at you. Interestingly, however, there has been concern about the material within the military for at least ten years. One of earliest warnings came in the so-called Los Alamos internal memorandum, dated March 1991.

---

The ministry that hides from truth
Gulf war veterans deserve better treatment and we need honesty
Special report: depleted uranium

The Guardian
Thursday January 11, 2001
George Monbiot
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uranium/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uranium/story/0,7369,420677,00.html

On April 21 1999, I telephoned the Ministry of Defence and asked its press office whether Nato was using weapons tipped with depleted uranium in Kosovo. "Certainly not," I was told. I phoned Nato on the same day, and was told that these weapons were in fact being deployed. Yesterday the MoD's press officer confirmed to me that his department knew DU was being used at the time. So had the MoD lied to me? "You shouldn't read anything into it," he assured me, "it certainly wasn't intentionally misleading." A definitive denial was issued by mistake.

Perhaps we should view the ministry's current position paper on the testing of Gulf war veterans for depleted uranium as another unfortunate accident. Or perhaps we simply shouldn't read anything into it. Otherwise we'd have no choice but to conclude that the mistakes it contains are a series of lies.

The fine particles of dust released when a DU-tipped weapon hits its target, are, the MoD insists, "rapidly diluted and dispersed into the environment by the weather", soon becoming "difficult to detect". Yet samples taken over Kuwait City in 1993, two years after the end of the Gulf war, found depleted uranium particles in the air. This result appears to have been corroborated both by the preliminary findings of the UN team in Kosovo and by the results obtained in Iraq by the researcher Dr Chris Busby. He found that levels of radiation in the air over the Gulf war battlefields were 20 times higher last year than the levels in Baghdad.

No one "other than those in an armoured vehicle penetrated by a DU projectile", the MoD paper insists, would be exposed to enough uranium "to receive a radiation dose greater than 20 to 30 millisieverts". In the most "extreme and unlikely cases", such as working for 30 or 40 hours inside a tank which had been hit by one of these missiles, a serviceman might receive "a radiation dose of the order of 50 millisieverts." Such radiation levels should present little cause for concern, the paper argues, as the "safe dose" for people working in the UK is calculated at 50 millisieverts a year. Servicemen receiving this dose from "extreme and unlikely" exposure "would be at a slightly increased risk of developing cancer". For everyone else the risk would be "negligible".

These conclusions, the MoD admits, are based on speculation, as "no UK Gulf veterans have so far been specifically tested for the presence of uranium" by the government. This is true, as far as it goes. But other Gulf veterans have been tested by independent researchers. And their findings, based not upon speculation but upon hard fact, suggest a very different level of contamination.

Urine samples taken from veterans and measured by mass spectometry have been analysed by the medical researchers Professor Hari Sharma and Dr Rosalie Berthell. Their results suggest that the doses received by soldiers inhaling the dust are in the order not of 20 or 30 or 50 millisieverts, but of 778.

As Malcolm Hooper, emeritus professor of medicinal chemistry at the University of Sunderland has shown, fine particles of DU entering the lungs are likely to stay in the body for between 10 and 20 years. The fact that DU is still appearing in some Gulf veterans' urine suggests he may be right. If this is the case and the samples taken so far are representative, then instead of a "negligible" or "slightly increased" risk of cancer, we could, he argues, expect between 1,500 and 10,500 of the UK's 53,000 Gulf war soldiers to develop fatal cancers as a result of their exposure to DU.

Now no one can put her hand on her heart and say that the diseases beginning to emerge among both Iraqi civilians and ex-servicemen are the result of exposure to DU. But neither can anyone put her hand on her heart and say they are not. Yet this is precisely what the MoD has sought to do. Like certain other government departments, it has deployed not the precautionary principle, but the improvidence principle: shoot first, ask questions later.

It's not hard to see why it should do so. Were the MoD to express any doubts about the safety of its procedures, the potential compensation claims would make the BSE disaster look cheap. DU dust is likely to have become so widespread that an effective clean-up operation in the Gulf and the Balkans would cost some trillions of pounds. The UK could also find itself firmly on the wrong side of the Geneva convention.

So we can expect the unfortunate mistakes the MoD has made to continue for as long as possible. Statistics, as far as government departments are concerned, will remain not a science, but an art.

---

NATO bombs taking a terrible toll in Bratunac [STOPNATO.ORG.UK]

From: kevcross@webtv.net
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:44:26 -0500 (EST)
STOP NATO: ¡NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK

The Committee for National Solidarity Tolstojeva 34, Belgrade, YU
Nedeljni Telegraf, Belgrade, Yugoslavia Issue 246, January 10, 2001

SHOCKING Uranium NATO bombs are taking a terrible toll in Bratunac in eastern Bosnia. The most recent victim was only 20 years old Someone dies of cancer every third day; there is no more room in the cemeteries by Dubravka Vujanovic Photo: I. Dobricic

http://www.nedeljnitelegraf.co.yu/novi/uran1.gif The cemetery in Bratunac already stretches to the houses

The village is empty, the cemetery full. Soon there will be no more room for the dead. Among refugee families who moved to Bratunac from Hadzici there is a hardly a household not cloaked in mourning.

The meadow set aside for the cemetery, they say, was almost completely empty five years ago when they arrived. Today, one next to the other, separated by a distance of less than one half meter, grave upon grave. On them are fresh wreaths, some with flowers that have not yet wilted. On the crosses the years of death 1998, 1999, 2000 and the grave of a 20 year-old woman at the end of the rows. She died a few days ago.

These are the horrific pictures which the casual visitor will find in Bratunac because the first stories about this village will take him nowhere else but the cemetery. The natives of Bratunac live while the natives of Hadzici die. Suddenly, overnight, after a few days' illness, in the greatest pain - from cancer. Every attempt to explain what is happening to them takes them back to 1995.

Five years ago Hadzici was a part of something called Serbian Sarajevo. They survived the double encirclement of the Muslim army and what was most probably the most intense bombing ever seen. In only one day, planes flew 200 missions to dump more than 500 bombs on this municipality. The residents of Hadzici survived. They survived the war, that is, but not the peace.

First, they say, they were betrayed in Dayton in November 1995. Someone at the top got the idea that the best thing to do would be to move Hadzici to Bratunac. There was no choice and very little time. Almost the same night, before the peace delegation returned to the country still hung over from the signing of the peace contract, the natives of Hadzici packed themselves and their belongings into trucks and tractor trailers and headed toward Bratunac, a small town between Zvornik and Srebrenica.

It was no ordinary move. During the night the natives of Hadzici unearthed their dead and loaded them onto trailers. Not a single "Serb ear" was left in that part of Serbian Sarajevo. Even though they transferred an astonishing 156 graves, they had no problems accommodating their dead. An entire tract in the cemetery was empty and they buried them next to each other. They raised an identical marker over each grave.

No one could even imagine that in only one or two years the part of the cemetery set aside for civilians would be doubly full.

"First the older people began to die. Their bodies must have been less resistant to the inexplicable thing which later began claiming the lives of younger people as well. It happens often that one of the natives of Hadzici will suddenly die. Or they will go to see the doctor in Belgrade and when they come back their relatives will tell us that they are dying of cancer. And it doesn't happen to the natives of Bratunac but only to us," relates Sretko Elez, a sixty year-old man from Hadzici.

It was believed that it was a question of fate. Then chief doctor Slavica Jovanovic asked how it was possible. She conducted an investigation and proved that in 1998 the mortality rate far exceeded the birth rate. She showed that it wasn't just a question of fate but something far more serious. The political leadership was informed but to date no one has said a word about it. Foreign television crews arrive daily in Bratunac, pathologists are asking about the anonymous little town while Banja Luka and Belgrade remain silent.

"Even Zoran Stankovic, the renowned pathologist from the Military Medical Academy (VMA) determined that over 200 of his patients from this area died of cancer, most probably due to the effects of depleted uranium in dropped NATO bombs five years ago. But someone quickly silenced the public and everything was hushed up. No one would know what is happening to us to this very day if they themselves had not met with the same fate, if they had not begun to die. Only now are they all asking themselves what will happen if the same thing befalls Serbia which befell the Serbs from Hadzici," says Nedeljko Zelenovic, a reporter for Radio Bratunac and a refugee from Hadzici, bitterly.

Zelenovic lost his father a few months ago to cancer of the lungs. Approximately 20 people have died in just six months. If one does the math, they tell us, he will find that a native of Hadzici dies every third or fourth day.

And they start to remember. Ratko Radic, the former mayor of Hadzici municipality, died a few months ago. The diagnosis - cancer of the lungs. Soon afterward, his wife Ljilja, who was wounded during the bombing. She died of leukemia. Then Drago Vujovic, Dejan Jelicic, Mihajlo Andric...

"You see, our cemetery is full of fresh graves while the people from Vinca [Nuclear Institute] claim that uranium isn't dangerous. What other kind of evidence do you need if people are dying? If they are dying every day? Go to the cemetery and see for yourselves. That's where Vinca's evidence lies," says Elez bitterly. "Today I am healthy; tomorrow, who knows... Perhaps my body is stronger and it won't get me..."

Are they afraid of what the future may hold for them, we asked the natives of Hadzici in closing.

"We have nothing to be afraid of any more. We survived the war, hunger, expulsion... We all have to die anyway, sooner or later..."

A fire burned for five days where the bomb fell and the smoke from it smothered us

Hadzici was bombed for several reasons. One of them was that it was allegedly where Radovan Karadzic was hiding. In this suburb there were several factories and barracks with thick concrete floors and basements which could not be penetrated. Sretko Elez claims that is why they used uranium - because it is heavier than lead and better able to penetrate the framework.

"My house was leveled by a NATO bomb. It took them five days to get it out, that's how heavy it was. Not far away there was a completely unimportant building, a service shop of some kind. When they hit it, the flames could not be extinguished for an entire week and when it was put out there was still smoke from it that smothered us. And after every bomb, even the smallest one, a mushroom-like cloud could be seen. You see, that is what we are dying from today."

8,000 people disappeared and the state is silent

"In April 1996 as many as 16,000 refugees were relocated to 66 municipalities of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. According to the census taken in fall of last year, there are 8,200 of them left. If we know that approximately 400 people left, mostly to go abroad, I ask myself what happened to almost 8,000 people. And why the state is silent on the matter," says Nedeljko Zelenovic and adds: "They are probably going through something similar as the natives of Hadzici because all of them were moved from places which fell after NATO bombing in September 1995."

The refugees from Hadzici arrived in Bratunac in a sizeable number. There were almost 5,000 of them. There were 1,000 just in the collective centers. Now, says Zelenovic, there are about 600 of them left. And they certainly had nowhere else to go.

Mrs Jela Jovanovic, art historian Secretary General

---

Belgrade: NATO contaminated our land

CNN
January 11, 2001 Web posted at: 1:24 PM EST (1824 GMT)
By Alessio Vinci, CNN Belgrade Bureau Chief
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/01/11/yugo.uranium/index.html

BELGRADE, Yugoslavia (CNN) -- NATO's use of depleted uranium shells has left "long-lasting and dangerous" radioactive contamination in Yugoslavia, local army officials say.

Radiation levels in the Presevo Valley near the Kosovo border are up to 1,300 times higher than what is considered safe, army experts say. Four areas in Serbia and one in Montenegro are said to be contaminated.

The areas tested by Yugoslav officials do not include Kosovo, which took the bulk of the estimated 30,000 depleted uranium (DU) rounds fired during the NATO campaign of 1999.

In Belgrade, the army colonel in charge of nuclear, biological and chemical warfare said NATO has given the Yugoslav army maps indicating where DU rounds were fired -- mainly rural areas away from populated centres.

Army officials say so far no Yugoslav soldier deployed in the areas targeted with DU rounds has shown evidence of contamination. That's because, officials say, soldiers were equipped with special protective gear during the bombings.

"None of the soldiers of the Yugoslav army are ill due to overexposure to radioactivity, and I know that among the local population we still do not have cases of illnesses reported," said Yugoslav army Lt. Col. Cedomir Vranjanac.

But Col. Milan Zaric of the Yugoslav army general staff said he is concerned about the possible fallout from the use of this kind of ammunition.

"It is still too early for the consequences to be shown," Zaric said. "We still do not know so much about the influence of depleted uranium on water sources or food."

Scientists at the Institute for Nuclear Physics outside Belgrade are working closely with the army to examine soil samples and spent DU rounds from southern Serbia.

Yugoslav army investigators say NATO fired as many as 5,000 DU projectiles against targets outside Kosovo, mostly in southern Serbia near the border with Kosovo.

Scientists confirm that radiation levels there are higher than normal, and say that dust and debris from the majority of the fired DU rounds remain.

"That can cause deep contamination on underground water supplies and finally enter into the food chain," said Snezana Pavlovic of the Institute for Nuclear Physics. "But it is not a quick process, it will not happen in a year."

Morality questioned

Yugoslav officials say there is no radiation danger for residents unless they stand on the very spot hit or hold DU ammunition in their bare hands. But officials worry about unexploded rounds that missed their intended targets and ended up deep in the ground.

"There is a real threat (the) local population could become exposed to radioactivity, because the local farmers keep livestock in this area" despite warning signs, Vranjanac said.

Local doctors say so far they have not seen any evidence of an increase in illnesses typically linked to radiation exposure. But residents say they didn't know about the possibility of radioactive contamination until they heard the issue discussed on television.

"We are all very concerned because we drink milk which farmers bring from the contaminated areas," said one resident. "Until a few days ago we knew absolutely nothing about higher levels of radioactivity in our neighbourhood."

In Kosovo, now under U.N. and NATO administration, a team of Portuguese experts recently conducted radiation tests and said they found nothing out of the ordinary.

But scientists with the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) in November found slight contamination at eight of 11 locations examined in Kosovo. U.N. scientists advised that the eight sites be closed off, but that apparently has not been done.

"I don't believe anything was done," said U.N. spokeswoman Suzan Manuel. "UNEP did recommend at that time that sites be marked off and I'm not sure that has been done. I think it is something we need to take up."

Yugoslav army officials also question the morality of the use of depleted uranium rounds.

"There was no need to use that kind of weapon. ... That kind of weapon has consequences that could last almost forever," said Col. Zaric. "It is a very strange way to carry out (a) humanitarian mission -- to cause (a) contaminated area that is going to remain and to cause danger for the people for several thousand years."

That is precisely what most worries Yugoslav officials: the still unknown consequences of depleted uranium on the environment and the population -- something that may take decades to establish.

---

U.N. urges more radiation tests

CNN
January 11, 2001
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/UK/01/11/uranium.02/index.html

GENEVA, Switzerland -- Senior United Nations officials have called for soil and water samples to be taken from Bosnia in areas where depleted uranium ammunition was used.

The U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) has already carried out tests for radioactivity and toxicity at 11 sites in western and southern Kosovo with the results expected by March.

But UNEP said on Thursday that studies should also be done in Bosnia and at all 112 depleted uranium sites identified by NATO in Kosovo.

The recommendation comes on the same day that a leaked British Defence Ministry report from 1997 warned of the risk of cancer from depleted uranium.

It said soldiers carrying out salvage work inside vehicles that had been damaged by depleted uranium shells faced up to eight times the acceptable level of exposure and could be at risk of developing lung, lymph and brain cancers.

But the Ministry of Defence said the report was written by a "trainee" and had not been endorsed by senior officials.

The latest developments come one day after NATO agreed to set up a committee to examine any risks to troops who served in the Balkans after a number of Italian soldiers died from leukaemia.

Pekka Haavisto, who heads UNEP's Balkans Task Force team, said there was a need to go to all the sites in Kosovo and Bosnia simply to know whether there were still pieces of ammunition remaining, causing additional risks.

Russian Defence Ministry's international relations chief Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov said NATO had a duty to check the health of all Yugoslavs, not just troops in Kosovo and that any necessary clean-up costs should be met by NATO.

"It is extremely important that NATO countries pay attention not only to damage which may have been caused to the health of servicemen in the Kosovo operation, but to all damage caused in Yugoslavia, to its people and ecology," he said.

Concern across Europe

Russia's air force chief General Anatoly Kornukov accused NATO of using Kosovo as a dumping ground for ammunition.

"It is clear to me they dropped the (bombs) they needed to destroy, as purely destroying them would have been several times more expensive than dropping them during bombing," he told ORT public television.

Despite MoD assurances, the latest developments still threaten to inflame fears already sweeping across Europe that soldiers' lives were put at risk in Bosnia and Kosovo, as well as in the Gulf War.

On Tuesday, Britain bowed to pressure and said it would offer screening to veterans of the Kosovo and Bosnian wars for signs of illness.

The screening will not be offered to Gulf War veterans even though similar weapons were used there and many who fought in the 1991 war against Iraq complain of serious illness.

Chairman of the National Gulf War Veterans and Families Association Shaun Rusling said his members had lost any faith in the government.

"They are now trying to rubbish their own medical documents and safety procedures," he said. "There should be a public inquiry. We have got 521 Gulf War veterans who have died since April 1991. Many of them have died of cancers."

Last month, Italy began studying the illnesses of 30 Balkans veterans, seven of whom died of cancer, including five cases of leukaemia.

In France, four soldiers are being treated for leukaemia. Several European countries have begun screening soldiers who served as peacekeepers in the Balkans. Many civilian aid agencies are doing the same.

---

UK uranium warning fuels debate

CNN
January 11, 2001 Web posted at: 6:07 AM EST (1107 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/UK/01/11/uranium/index.html

LONDON, England -- A leaked British Defence Ministry report warning of the risk of cancer from depleted uranium has added fuel to the international debate.

The 1997 report said soldiers carrying out salvage work inside vehicles that had been damaged by depleted uranium (DU) shells faced up to eight times the acceptable level of exposure and could be at risk of developing lung, lymph and brain cancers.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed on Thursday the existence of the report but said it was written by a "trainee" and never officially endorsed by senior staff.

The latest developments come one day after NATO agreed to set up a committee to examine any risks to troops who served in the Balkans after a number of Italian soldiers died from leukaemia.

The report was prepared by the Headquarters of the Army's Quartermaster-General as an internal document for military officials.

"Certain elements are scientifically incorrect or misleading," Ministry of Defence spokesman Paul Sykes told CNN.com.

He said: "We have always known there are potential hazards with DU." But he added that the health risks were minimal and would require a soldier "holding a piece of shrapnel for hundreds of hours before UK safety levels are broken."

Despite MoD assurances, the latest development still threaten to inflame fears already sweeping across Europe that soldiers' lives were put at risk in Bosnia and Kosovo, as well as in the Gulf War.

According to published excerpts of the leaked report, the army warned that the risk of exposure to the "hazardous" uranium dust "must be reduced."

"Inhalation of insoluble uranium dioxide dust will lead to accumulation in the lungs with very slow clearance -- if any," the document said. "Although the chemical toxicity is low, there may be localised radiation damage of the lung leading to cancer."

The British government has reiterated its position that medical evidence has so far failed to prove any link between the heavy metal, favoured because of its ability to penetrate armour, and soldiers being diagnosed with.

But on Tuesday, Britain bowed to pressure and said it would offer screening to veterans of the Kosovo and Bosnian wars for signs of illness.

The screening will not be offered to Gulf War veterans. Similar weapons were used there and many who fought in the 1991 war against Iraq complain of serious illness.

Chairman of the National Gulf War Veterans and Families Association Shaun Rusling said his members had lost any faith in the government.

"They are now trying to rubbish their own medical documents and safety procedures," he said. "There should be a public inquiry. We have got 521 Gulf War veterans who have died since April 1991. Many of them have died of cancers."

Last month, Italy began studying the illnesses of 30 Balkans veterans, seven of whom died of cancer, including five cases of leukaemia.

In France, four soldiers are being treated for leukaemia. Several European countries have begun screening soldiers who served as peacekeepers in the Balkans. Many civilian aid agencies are doing the same.

---

Danger signs to go up at uranium sites

CNN
January 11, 2001 Web posted at: 5:29 PM EST (2229 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/01/11/uranium.03/index.html

PRISTINA, Yugoslavia -- United Nations officials are to post warning signs at sites in Kosovo which were bombed with depleted uranium ammunition.

The U.N. also plans to offer voluntary health tests as concern increases over the long-term health effects of the arms.

Depleted uranium weapons, which release a mildly radioactive dust on impact, were used by NATO during the 1999 bombing of the region.

The signs will say: "Caution. Area may contain residual heavy metal toxicity. Entry not advised."

NATO has identified 112 sites in Kosovo, but a spokesman for the U.N. peacekeeping force said that finding all the sites, many of which are in large fields, "would take a lot of resources."

The U.N. mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) said a voluntary testing programme is being set up at Pristina's main hospital and that the World Health Organisation will send three specialists to Kosovo at the request of U.N. administrator Bernard Kouchner.

Several countries have issued calls for NATO to investigate the possible long-term effects of the ammunition. NATO has insisted there was only a minimal health risk.

The U.N. Environmental Programme said the sites should be cordoned off to prevent children wandering onto them.

"Some of these sites were near villages or in the middle of villages. Cows were there, children were there," said Pekka Haavisto, leader of a U.N. team that checked the sites for radiation.

A total of 340 samples taken during the two-week mission to Kosovo have been sent to five European laboratories for analysis. Results are expected in early March.

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who was NATO Secretary General during the allied airstrikes in Bosnia in 1994 and 1995 and during the 1999 Yugoslavia campaign, said there was no link at the time of the bombings between the weapons and illnesses such as cancer.

But UNEP Executive Director Klaus Toepfer said precautions should be taken until it was clear there was no danger.

However, he added: "I think this isn't the moment to blame anyone. UNMIK has been extremely busy with its mine-clearance program."

Toepfer said all 112 sites should be visited, checked and clearly marked to protect the local population.

Last month, Italy began studying the illnesses of 30 Balkans veterans, seven of whom died of cancer, including five cases of leukaemia. In France, five soldiers are being treated for leukaemia.

Several European countries have begun screening soldiers who served as peacekeepers in the Balkans, while many civilian aid agencies are doing the same.

NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson denied the issue threatened to split the 19-nation alliance.

"I believe the way we have handled this issue shows that NATO remains strong, is still united and is still one of the most effective defensive alliances the world has ever known," Robertson said.

And U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said NATO was taking seriously European concerns over the possible health risks.

"I hope this is not an issue that is being used by others for their personal agendas," said Albright, who has warned against letting hysteria dominate discussion of the so-called "Balkans syndrome."

Her comments came as Britain rubbished a leaked report from its own defence ministry that warned exposure to the ammunition increased the risk of cancer.

British media said the report warned that "uranium dust inhalation carries a long term risk...the (dust) has been shown to increase the risks of developing lung, lymph and brain cancers."

A UK defence ministry spokesman told Reuters the report was scientifically incorrect.

"It is flawed. It was done by a trainee. It was never endorsed by senior staff. It was not taken forward," he said.

In a further sign of public anger over the issue, around 2,000 Greeks marched through central Athens to the U.S. embassy in a protest against the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans.

---

UN Urges Wider Uranium Studies in Kosovo, Bosnia

Reuters
January 11, 2001 Filed at 9:56 a.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/science/science-balkans-unep-.html

GENEVA (Reuters) - Top United Nations environmental officials, speaking as Kosovo war veterans voiced growing concern about cancer risks from depleted uranium (DU) weapons, called on Thursday for investigation of sites in Bosnia too.

Klaus Toepfer, head of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), and Pekka Haavisto, who leads its Balkans Task Force team which has collected samples at 11 sites in Kosovo, said all 112 Kosovo sites should be analyzed for possible health risks.

In the meantime, they appealed again for authorities to mark all the Kosovo sites and prevent local populations from nearing areas hit in 1999 by NATO forces until they can be cleared.

``We believe...that there should be a need to go to all of the sites (in Kosovo) simply to know are there still some parts (pieces of ammunition), are there some additional risks?'' Toepfer told a 90-minute news conference in Geneva.

``I also believe that what we are doing in Kosovo should be also done in the situation of Bosnia...,'' added Toepfer, a former German environment minister.

In response to a reporter's question on Iraq, Toepfer said that the Kosovo findings would form a ``better basis'' for deciding what measures might also be necessary in Iraq.

Iraq has blamed western munitions containing depleted uranium used during the 1991 Gulf War for thousands of cancer deaths and deformed births.

RESULTS AWAITED FROM 11 KOSOVO SITES

In November, UNEP experts tested 11 sites in the Italian and German peacekeeping sectors of western and southern Kosovo for radioactivity and toxicity in soil and water. Pieces of DU ammunition and evidence of beta-radiation were found at eight.

``When entering these 11 sites, I have to say we were surprised to find full penetrators and sabots lying on the ground. These have probably hit something and then just lost their speed and rolled around on the ground,'' said Haavisto.

``Some of these were near villages or in the middle of villages and at sites where people having their normal life -- cows and children were there. It was a little bit disturbing.''

The team collected 340 soil, water and vegetation samples and decontaminated the areas. Results of analyzes, being carried out at five European laboratories, are due in early March.

``Our endeavor is to produce and make scientifically reliable data available for the use of different kinds of ammunition and for the results to the environment,'' Toepfer said.

``This is, I believe, also in the main interest of NATO and all the other partners, not the least the population in Kosovo, Serbia or other places where this ammunition was used,'' he said.

NATO and the United States insist there is no evidence of a link between the use of depleted uranium weapons and cases of leukemia in troops who have served in the Balkans.

Italy has demanded NATO investigate whether the deaths of six of its soldiers from leukemia after tours of duty in Kosovo and Bosnia were due to the so-called ``Balkans Syndrome.'' Cases of cancer have also been reported among soldiers from France, the Netherlands, Spain and Belgium.

Munitions with a depleted uranium core enhance the ability of weapons to pierce armored vehicles like tanks.

The Pentagon said last year that NATO forces had fired 31,000 rounds of depleted uranium against Yugoslav armored vehicles in the 1999 Kosovo conflict, while NATO officials reported only last month that some 10,000 had been fired in Bosnia in 1994-95.

Haavisto said: ``My conclusion is that these NATO coordinates concerning Kosovo are reliable. My recommendation is that at least these 112 sites should be visited.

``These areas are not marked, and actually the local population usually did not know if they were living near the DU sites,'' Haavisto added. ``Most of the DU sites are situated at minefields or fields where there are still unexploded cluster bombs...''

---

Declare Depleted Uranium a Radioactive Waste say Councils

Nuclear Free Local Authorities <nfznsc@gn.apc.org>
Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:19:21 +0000

Nuclear Free Local Authorities today called for all UK depleted uranium to be declared a radioactive waste and securely stored pending final disposal together with the country's existing radioactive waste legacy.

"Health hazards associated with both civilian and military uses make its continued free availability unacceptable" said Rotherham Councillor, Ken Wyatt, Chair of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities. "For immediate In different circumstances, from civil aircraft accidents, munitions factory fires, to weapon testing on open ranges, depleted uranium contamination has raised serious concerns about health implications. The Environment Agency has dealt with four incidents since 1999 where depleted uranium was in the supply chain for the scrap metal industry. Had it been melted it would have caused foundry contamination and threatened worker safety" continued Cllr Wyatt.

Depleted uranium is a waste product of uranium enrichment for nuclear fuel. The European Commission's 4th Report on The Present Situation and Prospects for Radioactive Waste Management in the European Union (Comm(1998) 799 Final 11.01.99 p70) says:

"Huge quantities of depleted uranium are produced; for every kg of enriched light water reactor fuel that is produced, 5 to 8 kg of depleted material (depending on enrichment) are generated. Large amounts of this material are already stored at the centrifuge enrichment facilities at Almelo, Gronau and Capenhurst (Cheshire), and arisings by the year 2010 are expected to reach 110,000 tonnes."

Further information:
STEWART KEMP (o) 0161 234 3244 (h) 0114 266 7656 (m) 07771 930196

Note
A detailed background report from May 1999 on depleted uranium is available from the Nuclear Free Local Authorities Secretariat at the address below.

Nuclear Free Local Authorities Secretariat Environment and Development Manchester City Council PO Box 463 Town Hall Manchester M60 3NY UK Tel: + 44 161 234 3244 Fax: + 44 161 234 3379 Web Site: http://www.gn.apc.org/nfznsc/

The Local Government Voice on Nuclear Issues

---

Britain Dismisses Own Report Backing Uranium Risk

Yahoo News
Thursday January 11 1:05 AM ET
By Brian Williams
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010111/wl/health_balkans_dc_17.html

LONDON (Reuters) - An internal British Defense Ministry report warned four years ago that exposure to ammunition coated with depleted uranium increased the risk of cancer, British media said on Thursday.

A Ministry of Defense (MoD) spokesman confirmed a report was prepared on the subject but said it was flawed, written by a trainee and never endorsed in any way.

However the mere existence of the report added fuel to a debate in Britain and elsewhere about the safety of depleted uranium (DU) ammunition used by British, U.S. and other western armies in the Gulf and Balkan wars.

NATO (news - web sites) promised on Wednesday to investigate the effects of DU used in tank-busting ammunition, but insisted it posed a minimal health risk.

As more countries stepped up screening of war veterans who may have been exposed to the munitions' mildly radioactive residue, NATO said it would do all it could to reassure troops and civilians worried by recent cancer scares.

NATO ambassadors agreed a ``robust'' action plan to lookinto the effects of using DU in weapons which have been linked to dozens of cases of leukemia among Western peacekeepers who served in the Balkan conflicts.

Details of the 1997 British report were splashed on the front pages of the Guardian and Independent newspapers under headlines like ``MoD knew shells were cancer risk.''

``The warnings, in an internal MoD document are in marked contrast to persistent public assurances -- repeated by the Armed Forces Minister John Spellar to parliament on Tuesday -- playing down the risk of DU,'' the Guardian said.

The army medical report said inhalation of dust from DU led to accumulation in the lungs ``with very slow clearance -- if any.''

``Although the chemical toxicity is low, there may be localized radiation damage of the lung, leading to cancer,'' the two newspapers quoted the report as saying.

``All personnel should be aware that uranium dust inhalation carries a long term risk ... the (dust) has been shown to increase the risks of developing lung, lymph and brain cancers.''

The MoD spokesman told Reuters the report was scientifically incorrect and misleading.

``It is flawed. It was done by a trainee. It was never endorsed by senior staff. It was not taken forward. It is not an official position of ours,'' the spokesman said.

The spokesman was unable to say whether the trainee author was a military or other doctor.

Britain has agreed to test soldiers for possible health problems while insisting there was no evidence of a link.

On Wednesday Spellar told parliament a voluntary screening program would be set up for people who served in the Balkans but said the move was a response to public concern not evidence of illness caused by depleted uranium.

NATO has appeared split between the likes of Britain and the United States, who argue there is no health risk from DU weaponry and Germany, Italy, Portugal and Belgium who want a full NATO inquiry.

--------

Uranium-Tipped Arms Ban Rejected by NATO Majority

January 11, 2001
By MARLISE SIMONS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/11/world/11NATO.html

BRUSSELS, Jan. 10 - A majority of NATO countries turned down requests today from several of their allies for a temporary ban on the inclusion of depleted-uranium munitions in NATO arsenals.

The weapons have caused a political storm in Europe because of suspicions that they harmed the health of Western peacekeepers in the Balkans as well as the environment.

At a testy meeting today, some ambassadors of the 19-member Western alliance were critical of the United States, which has been the main proponent of the munitions. But most did not back the demands from Italy, Germany, Norway and Greece to remove the munitions from arsenals until it is made clear whether they were linked to the cancers and other ailments that have developed in peacekeepers sent to the Balkans.

Italy has been in the forefront of pressing for a moratorium on the weapons, which are antitank shells that contain depleted uranium. The metal was chosen for its hardness and density and its ability to penetrate tanks.

The Defense Ministry in Rome announced today that a seventh Balkans veteran had died from leukemia. That brings the known deaths from leukemia of European peacekeepers who have served in the Balkans to 15.

Division among the allies on the issue goes back several years, and countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, which have strong environmental lobbies, argue strongly against such weapons.

"We do not buy them or use them because of concerns about the environment and about the health of the personnel that handles them," said a spokesman at the Dutch Defense Ministry in The Hague.

The German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, also called this week for a halt in NATO's use of the weapons even though Germany said it has found no suspicious illness among its soldiers. "I am skeptical about the use of munitions that could lead to dangers for our own soldiers," Mr. Schröder said.

The differences within NATO ranks have come to the fore as public concern, fed by a wave of press reports, has grown over these weapons.

Today two American military experts arrived from Washington to brief NATO ambassadors and journalists on the advantages and risks of depleted-uranium munitions.

Trying to calm the furor, NATO today announced what it called a robust plan to reassure governments, service personnel and public opinion that the munitions could not be linked to illnesses such as cancer or leukemia in the troops that had served in the Balkans.

The NATO secretary general, Lord Robertson, said that NATO would share all information on depleted-uranium ammunition weaponry and act as a clearinghouse for governments and groups concerned.

Lord Robertson said he wanted people to understand that "we are acting in the interest of our troops, and the civilians are very much in mind."

"That is why we are moving to be more open with the information," he continued, "to focus more on the facts and less on the emotion."

Lord Robertson emphasized that the alliance would continue to cooperate with the United Nations environmental program, to evaluate the environmental impact of the war and of depleted uranium in particular.

But he was unable to explain why the United States had withheld crucial information for more than a year from the United Nations environmental program. The United Nations team of 14 scientists had asked for the locations of places targeted with depleted-uranium munitions so they could collect soil and water samples. But the United States military command took almost a year to release the information, and the scientists did not get to work until last November. The delay caused frustration and suspicion. "There was nothing to hide," the NATO chief said, referring to the difficulties in getting the information. "There was a bureaucratic delay in the system which we all regret."

In Italy, 30 soldiers have reported a variety of postwar illnesses, and 7 have died of leukemia.

Italian fishing associations have also demanded an explanation of the risks from munitions they have pulled up in nets in the northern Adriatic.

NATO has said that American warplanes returning to base during the 1999 Kosovo campaign have dropped unspent and deactivated munitions into the sea before landing in northern Italy.

"We need to know the exact classification of the bombs found in the Adriatic," said Renato Galeazzi, a representative of a group of seaboard cities.

-------- russia

Panel Suggests Giving Russia $30 Billion to Protect Arms
Possible theft of nuclear material poses 'clear threat'

San Francisco Chronicle
Thursday, January 11, 2001
Walter Pincus, Washington Post
mailto:feedback@sfgate.com
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/01/11/MN182742.DTL

Washington -- A blue-ribbon task force headed by two elder statesmen, Republican Howard Baker and Democrat Lloyd Cutler, recommended yesterday that the United States spend up to $30 billion over the next eight to 10 years to improve security over Russia's nuclear stockpile.

Arguing that the possible theft or sale of Russian nuclear materials presents "a clear and present danger . . . to American lives and liberties," the bipartisan panel concluded that U.S. spending on nuclear security programs in Russia should rise to about $3 billion a year from the current $700 million.

Russia has an estimated 40,000 nuclear weapons and more than 1,000 metric tons of nuclear material -- including highly enriched uranium and plutonium -- scattered at facilities across Russia, many of them with inadequate security.

The task force's report was released by Baker, a former Senate Republican leader from Tennessee who served as White House chief of staff in the Reagan administration, and Cutler, who was White House counsel in the Carter and Clinton administrations.

Baker said the panel's report had been given to Donald Rumsfeld, President-elect Bush's nominee for defense secretary. He added that he believes Bush and Vice President-elect Dick Cheney "share our conviction that this is one of the most important problems we face."

The task force, established early last year by Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, received U.S. intelligence briefings and visited Russian nuclear sites. While praising the Russian government for cooperating on nuclear security at many facilities, the Baker-Cutler report also warned that without greater transparency and access on the Russian side, "full success will not be achievable."

One way to accelerate the process, the report said, would be to consolidate Russia's estimated 40,000 nuclear weapons and its many tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium into a smaller number of centralized storage facilities. Russian weapons are now spread over more than 100 storage sites.

Baker and Cutler acknowledged in an interview that congressional support for nuclear programs in Russia could be endangered by the Kremlin's promotion of its civilian atomic energy business, particularly through sales to Iran.

"The Russians think of their nuclear stockpile as gold" at a time when they are desperate for foreign trade, Baker said. But, he added, "even though we may be pouring money into a bottomless bucket, it's a gamble worth taking."

--------

Nuclear Items Sold by Russia to Iran Pose an Obstacle

January 11, 2001
By JAMES RISEN
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/11/world/11PROL.html

WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 - Russian sales to Iran of technology that has both civilian and military purposes are a major obstacle to expanding American efforts to prevent the spread of Russian nuclear material, a bipartisan panel has found.

The panel, established by Energy Secretary Bill Richardson to review Energy Department programs intended to safeguard Russian nuclear material, has found that the trade in so called dual-use technology, as well as in conventional weapons, from Russia to Iran remained a critical problem in relations between Washington and Moscow. And that problem makes it more difficult to resolve related proliferation disputes.

"The task force," the report said, "is particularly concerned that if Russian cooperation with Iran continues in a way that compromises nuclear nonproliferation norms, it will inevitably have a major adverse effect on continued cooperation in a wide range" of nonproliferation programs between the nations.

The panel, led by Lloyd N. Cutler, a former White House counsel in the Clinton administration, and former Senator Howard H. Baker Jr., a Republican, called for spending up to $30 billion in the next eight to 10 years to expand and improve American programs to safeguard Russian nuclear materials.

There is no evidence that any nuclear material has left Russia for terrorist groups or countries that are seeking to become nuclear powers, the study said. But the threat remains one of the most critical security challenges facing the United States, the report concludes.

"We want to give the public a wake-up call about how serious this problem is," Mr. Cutler said.

The United States has spent $5 billion since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 to help Russia secure nuclear material and provide support for out-of-work scientists. But the study, which was released today, said although American efforts had been effective, the financing had not been nearly large enough to deal with the problem.

"Current nonproliferation programs in the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense and related agencies have achieved impressive results thus far," the report said. "But their limited mandate and funding fall short of what is required to address adequately the threat."

But the panel acknowledged that its recommendations to expand the program dramatically would not proceed until the Russians agreed to curb their relationship with Iran.

"One of the major obstacles to going forward is the Russia-Iran relationship," Mr. Cutler said. "We're not getting anywhere. What the Russians are doing vis-à-vis Iran is violating all of the norms. Unless we can solve this problem, we don't see how our recommendations for expanding the programs can be accomplished."

The committee found that more than 1,000 metric tons of highly enriched uranium and at least 150 metric tons of weapons grade plutonium remained in the Russian weapons complex. But Mr. Baker and Mr. Cutler agreed that one of their most worrisome findings was that no one seemed to know precisely how much fissile material remained in Russia.

"The thing that bothers me is I don't know how much they are producing, how much they've got, and I don't know whether they know or not," Mr. Baker said. "Transparency is a major issue."

The report noted recent incidents that had heightened concerns about the potential for a "loose nukes" crisis. This month, the report said, the Russian Federal Security Bureau arrested four sailors at a nuclear submarine base on the Kamchatka Peninsula and found a cache of precious metals and radioactive material that they had stolen from a safe in their sub. In 1998, a conspiracy at a complex of the Atomic Energy Ministry was uncovered. Individuals were trying to steal fissile material, the report said.

"The head of MinAtom's nuclear material accounting confirmed the attempted theft and warned that had the attempt been successful, it would have caused significant damage to the Russian state," the study reported.

In December 1998, an employee at a nuclear laboratory in Sarov was arrested. The employee was trying to sell documents on nuclear weapons designs to agents of Iraq and Afghanistan, the report said.

Along with increased spending of $3 billion a year, the panel recommended that the new administration create a high-level White House post to coordinate American efforts on the Russian nuclear problems.

Although the panel that produced the report was established by Mr. Richardson in the Clinton administration, Mr. Baker noted in an interview that he had already discussed the findings with President-elect George W. Bush's choice for secretary of state, Gen. Colin L. Powell.

----

Russia seen relying on nuke, germ weapons

January 11, 2001
By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://search1.washtimes.com/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?site_id=1&page_id=283

Russia has lowered the threshold for nuclear weapons use and increased its reliance on battlefield nuclear arms and hidden stocks of germs and poison gas to compensate for its declining army, the Pentagon said yesterday.

China, meanwhile, is building two road-mobile intercontinental missiles and a new submarine missile for an arsenal of more than 100 warheads. Beijing's military will soon field a new air-launched land-attack cruise missile being built with Russian assistance, the Pentagon stated in a report on arms proliferation.

North Korea is also working on long-range missiles, including a missile called the Taepo Dong 2 capable of reaching all of the United States with a warhead weighing several hundred pounds.

Details of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and missile threats are contained in a 187-page report made public yesterday called "Proliferation Threat and Response." It updates an 1997 report with the same title.

On Russia's nuclear forces, the report said that "Russia has thousands of tactical nuclear warheads that it is unlikely to dismantle soon and that are not subject to current arms control agreements."

"Recent Russian public statements about their willingness to use nuclear weapons indicate that Russia's threshold for the use of these weapons is lower, due to the decline of . . . its conventional forces," the report said.

The report made no mention of intelligence reports indicating Moscow recently moved tactical nuclear weapons into Kaliningrad enclave on the Baltic Sea some 250 miles from Russia proper.

According to the report, Russia returned all tactical nuclear weapons deployed outside its territory to Russia in 1992, after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. It is not clear whether Kaliningrad, which is technically Russian territory, was included in the tactical arms withdrawal.

Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said last week that any transfer of tactical nuclear arms to Kaliningrad would violate Moscow's promise to keep the Baltics "nuclear-free."

Disclosure of the tactical nuclear weapons transfers, first reported in The Washington Times Jan. 3, prompted calls by the Polish government for arms inspections. Russia's government denied having any nuclear arms in the enclave, located between Poland and Lithuania, and insists it is abiding by a pledge to keep Eastern Europe free of nuclear arms.

Because of conventional-force problems, "tactical nuclear weapons will remain a viable component of its general purpose forces for at least the next decade," the report said.

"Russia likely believes that maintaining tactical nuclear forces is a less expensive way to compensate for its current problems in maintaining conventional force capabilities," the report said.

The tactical nuclear forces include short-range missiles, artillery, air-delivered bombs, torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, it said.

President Vladimir Putin stated in January that the threshold for nuclear weapons use had been lowered. Mr. Putin said Russia would use "all forces and means, including nuclear weapons, if necessary to repel armed aggression," if other means fail.

A recent Russian military exercise used the scenario of a NATO attack on Kaliningrad and led exercising forces to resort to mock nuclear attacks on the Europe and the United States.

The Pentagon report also said there are "serious questions" about whether Russia secretly retained offensive biological and chemical weapons, in violation of arms treaties.

"At the same time [it is a signatory to treaties], Russian military leaders may view the retention of at least some of these capabilities as desirable, given the decline in Russia's conventional forces," the report said.

The report describes China as "one of the few countries that can threaten the continental United States."

"China is qualitatively improving its nuclear arsenal through a modernization program and by 2015, China likely will have tens of missiles capable of reaching the United States," the report said.

China's current arsenal of more than 100 warheads is being modernized to increase "the size, accuracy and survivability of its nuclear missile force." Currently about 20 aging CSS-4 missiles can hit the United States, it said.

"Some of its ongoing missile modernization programs likely will increase in the number of Chinese warheads aimed at the United States," the report said.

That statement contradicts the announcement of Chinese President Jiang Zemin in 1998 that China no longer targets its long-range nuclear missiles on U.S. cities. The pledge was made during a summit in Beijing with President Clinton, who also has declared in speeches that no nuclear missiles are pointed at the United States.

If the United States deploys a national missile-defense system, China may change the pace of its nuclear buildup, the report said, noting that "the ultimate extent of China's strategic modernization remains unknown."

China also has "some biological and chemical warfare capabilities" in violation of its commitments to international agreements banning the arms.

Russia, too, is continuing to modernize its nuclear weapons force with deployment of new road-mobile SS-27 intercontinental ballistic missiles and a new generation of submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

North Korea allowed inspections of a suspect underground nuclear facility in 1999. However, the report stated that "concerns remain over [a] possible covert nuclear weapons effort." Pyongyang also is continuing development of the Taepo Dong-2 and "remains capable of conducting [a] test" of the long-range missile.

The report also warned of transitional threats of terrorism, including the possible use of chemical or biological weapons against the United States, including attacks on crops and livestock.

Defense Secretary William S. Cohen warned in a speech yesterday that Russia may not make the transition to democracy and free markets and could revert to its past role as a global threat.

"I think there's cause for concern with the continued deterioration in Russian conventional and strategic forces," Mr. Cohen said at a National Press Club luncheon.

-------- u.s. nuc weapons


Elite Nuclear Forces Opening to Reservists and the Guard

January 11, 2001
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/11/national/11NUKE.html?pagewanted=all

WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 - The Pentagon has decided to open the nation's elite strategic nuclear forces to members of the National Guard and the Reserves, reversing a prohibition that dates to the end of the cold war, officials said today.

As a result, thousands of the nation's citizen soldiers could potentially join the scrupulously screened forces that control nuclear weapons - whether in missile silos, command bunkers and depots, or aboard strategic bombers, transport planes and even submarines.

The decision, to be announced on Thursday, is not expected to cause an immediate infusion of reservists into some of the most secretive, sensitive jobs in the American military, the officials said. But, they said, it would revise what they called an unfair and outdated policy that presumed people whose military service made up only part of their lives were unfit for such duty.

It will also clear the way for the Air Force and the Navy, in particular, to consider ways to tap the Guard and the Reserves for jobs that in many cases are increasingly hard to fill because of a smaller active military, the rigorous standards set to join the nuclear forces and the remote locations of many of the assignments.

The Pentagon is already considering proposals that would allow reservists to serve as "watchstanders," who would make the first report of a nuclear attack at the United States Space Command in Colorado and as crews aboard cargo aircraft that transport nuclear warheads or aboard B-52 bombers that would release them in a crisis.

The North Dakota National Guard has also proposed using its 4,600 Air and Army Guard troops as security at missile silos spread across the state. Maj. Gen. Keith D. Bjerke, who retired last month as the state's adjutant general, said the state's guard members, all North Dakota residents, would happily serve in a place many in the Air Force consider a hardship assignment.

"Instead of sending them to Bosnia for six months, we'd send them six miles from home," General Bjerke said in a recent interview.

Under the plan, reservists will still have to satisfy the rigorous medical and psychological evaluations, and intensified social and financial scrutiny, that active-duty personnel face in what is known as the Personal Reliability Program.

Nevertheless, the policy means that, at least in theory, all positions with access to or command over nuclear weapons, from inspectors to the people with their fingers on the button, will be open to those whose serve only part time. Today, there are roughly 17,500 active-duty service members in those positions, most of them in the Air Force.

"We're not eroding in any way the Personal Reliability Program," Charles L. Cragin, the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs, said today. "It is a stringent program that has a high level of integrity. And it needs to.

"What we're ensuring," Mr. Cragin added, "is that the men and women in the Guard and Reserves who have the expertise and willingness to serve are going to be part of the talent pool commanders can call on."

The reliance on the National Guard, which is under state control until mobilized, and the Reserve, which is an adjunct to the active military, in the nuclear forces is not without precedent, which is one of the arguments that supporters used to make their case.

At the height of the cold war, when the nation's strategic forces stood off against the Soviet Union's, reservists were involved in a variety of nuclear- related missions that were later disbanded.

Army Guard units operated Nike missile defense sites. Air Guard and Reserve pilots flew fighter jets carrying a nuclear-tipped rocket designed to detonate in the middle of a wave of Soviet bombers. Naval Reservists served aboard P-3 airplanes carrying nuclear depth-charges as recently as the early 1990's.

But even before the cold war ended, those missions began to fade, and the smaller, more professional strategic forces that emerged in the 1990's explicitly excluded reservists from participating, a policy codified in law in 1993.

The move to reverse that decision represents one of the more significant efforts by the Pentagon to rely more heavily on the roughly 870,000 members of the National Guard and the Reserves.

With the active-duty military having shrunk by a third since the cold war, guard and reserve units have become integral parts of virtually every operation overseas - from humanitarian relief to peacekeeping operations to the air war over Kosovo.

Last month, the Army announced that it was effectively turning over the American mission in Bosnia to the National Guard's combat divisions after having assigned command of the operation there for seven months last year to the 49th Armored Division of the Texas Guard.

The Pentagon is also integrating reservists into operations at home, including new security units that rely on reservists' civilian computer skills, and it has proposed using them to operate radar stations and missile bases being planned for a national missile defense system.

In a letter to the Pentagon's civilian and military leaders last week, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen wrote that integrating citizen soldiers into the active-duty forces was "now a fundamental principle guiding the restructuring and reorientation of our nation's military forces."

Even so, there remains resistance within the military to the increased reliance, particularly among some commanders who believe that part- time soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines simply do not have enough training.

Last year, the chief of staff of the Army, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, proposed incorporating six of the Guard's eight combat divisions into the nation's war plans, but the regional unified combat commanders have balked at the idea, according to officials familiar with the debate.

The proposal to open the nuclear forces has also proved contentious, becoming the subject of debate between civilian policymakers at the Pentagon and military commanders, who feared that a reservist who reported for duty only one weekend a month and two weeks each summer simply could not face the same scrutiny as a soldier on call all day, every day.

In particular, officials said, the commander of the United States Strategic Command in Omaha, Adm. Richard W. Mies, who oversees the nuclear force, raised concerns about the reliability of reservists.

In the end, Admiral Mies and the other senior commanders at the Space Command and the Transportation Command would retain the authority to approve the use of reservists within their units.

In addition to the rigorous screening, only reservists who serve a minimum of 12 days a month on active duty, with no more than 14 days in between, will qualify for consideration. That is considerably more than the minimum of a weekend a month and two weeks a year that reservists typically serve, but Mr. Cragin that many reservists, especially pilots and air crews, already serve significantly more than that.

He cited the Air Force Reserve's B-52 bomber squadron at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, saying many of its members were experienced pilots who only recently retired from active duty and continued to fly regularly as reservists.

"There's a phenomenal residue of talent and expertise that until this policy was change couldn't be used," he said.

--------


PREPARED REMARKS FOR U.S. SECRETARY OF ENERGY BILL RICHARDSON
PRESS CONFERENCE ON WORKER COMPENSATION LEGISLATION

eh.doe.gov
http://www.eh.doe.gov/benefits/laws/20010111remarks.html

There's a story about the great golfer Bobby Jones, who lost the 1925 U.S. Open because he admitted to inadvertently touching a ball in play. Nobody saw him do it, but he knew the rules. It cost him a stroke on his official scorecard and, in the end, the tournament.

When he was congratulated later in life for his integrity, Bobby Jones said, "you might as well praise a man for not robbing a bank." You see: Jones saw honesty as a simple part of our human nature. He believed that he had a contract with the public trust, and upholding it was just part of that deal.

Unfortunately, over time, our common foibles have, in some ways, devalued the currency of that trust. Somehow, we forgot what a handshake meant, what our word meant, and our commitment to our promises.

Shameful as it is, the Federal Government could not escape falling into this trap.

As you know, for many years, the government promoted a legacy of neglect toward those workers who helped build the strongest national security in the world. We failed to take care of workers who had become sick from exposure to radiation, beryllium and other hazards.

In doing so, we turned our back on some of the bravest Americans.

But America remains a land of opportunity. And when I saw that we had an opportunity to right our past wrongs, I knew we needed to act. It spoke to the very integrity of this Department -to renew our commitment to honesty and justice for our employees and for this nation.

It was an opportunity to correct our own "score-card" - and so settle the score with our workers.

As so many of you know, it hasn't been easy. But after months of hard work and negotiation, in April, the Clinton-Gore Administration announced a proposal to compensate those workers suffering from a broad range of work-related illnesses.

In the fall, Congress passed legislation authorizing this compensation. That was a dramatic, bipartisan victory in which we created the first new entitlement program in over a decade.

And in December, President Clinton signed an executive order assigning responsibilities for this new program to federal agencies -- including the Department of Energy and the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services.

And today, I am pleased to report that we are taking another, necessary step forward.

Today, the Clinton-Gore Administration is sending Congress proposed language that builds upon and strengthens the law enacted last year.

It further clarifies who will lead in implementing different aspects of the workers compensation program.

It expands the options available to workers who are sick - compensation options like lost wages or a lump-sum payment -- and it will ensure the quickest, most cost-effective implementation of the new program.

I trust that the same bipartisanship we saw last year can keep the cause of justice for our workers a priority.

Also today, the Department of Energy is releasing a list of facilities - federal and privately-owned - where we believe workers may be eligible for compensation if they have become sick.

The list identifies nearly 300 facilities across the nation, plus some areas outside the U.S. The Department will continue collecting information to improve this list, but it is a start. And we want workers from any of these facilities with an illness possibly covered by the new program to contact us. We can then help them determine their eligibility.

Finally, today marks the first meeting of the Department's new Workers Advocacy Advisory Committee. The committee members are here, and I want to thank them for committing to help us.

We're calling upon the Committee to:

Ensure that our compensation plan gains traction and reaches those who need it; Offer advice on worker compensation concerns; Review the Worker Advocacy Program, and help bring its initiatives forward; and Offer me - and the next Secretary of Energy - advice on what we're doing right in compensating our workers, and where we might be able to do better.

That is a substantial charge - but I am sure that this Committee can do it, since we have called upon experts from labor, health care, community interests, and academia.

So we begin this year with a great deal of work to do, and time and resources to invest. But justice for our workers is worth every bit of it.

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Initiative
http://tis.eh.doe.gov/benefits

---

Clinton Administration Proposes Legislation to Build Energy Department Worker Compensation Program

eh.doe.gov
01/01/11

NEWS MEDIA CONTACTS: Jeff Sherwood (DOE), 202/586-5806 Clinton Coleman (DOL), 202/693-0023
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 11, 2001
http://www.eh.doe.gov/portal/feature/pr01009.html

Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson today announced the Administration's proposed changes to existing legislation that provides for compensating thousands of current and former workers in nuclear weapons-related activities, or their survivors, whose service to the country left them sick or dying.

"For many years, the government promoted a legacy of neglect toward those workers who helped build the strongest national security in the world," said Secretary Richardson. "We failed to take care of our workers who became sick. The legislative changes we are proposing today are an opportunity to build upon our commitment to do what is right for our employees and for this nation by showing we have listened to what our workers want -- more choices in benefits and more fairness in adjudicating claims."

The Administration's proposal would amend the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-398), which was enacted in October 2000 with strong bipartisan support as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. The Act provides for compensation of Energy Department workers, or their survivors, who have occupational illnesses from exposure to the unique hazards associated with building the nation's nuclear defense. Secretary Richardson and Secretary of Labor Alexis M. Herman jointly transmitted the proposed amendments to Congress today.

The Department of Labor has primary responsibility for administering the compensation and medical benefits program, including determining eligibility requirements and adjudicating claims. Under the proposed amendments, a covered worker will be provided a choice of compensation remedies. The worker may elect to receive a lump sum payment of $150,000, as provided in the current law, or compensation for lost wages provided by the new legislation. Compensation for lost wages is the traditional remedy for workers' compensation under Federal and State compensation programs. Both the new legislation and current law provide for payment of medical expenses.

The legislation also makes changes necessary to administer the compensation program effectively. These changes include clarifying agency responsibilities for various activities and providing appropriate review of eligibility and other determinations made in implementing this program. The reviews include an appeals process for workers who may disagree with findings on their claims.

The Department of Health and Human Services will develop guidelines for the Department of Labor to determine whether a cancer is likely to be related to a worker's occupational exposure to radiation, to establish methods to estimate worker exposure to radiation and develop estimates for those who have applied for compensation. A Presidential advisory board is now being selected to provide oversight and assure confidence in the scientific validity and quality of this work.

Secretary Richardson also made public an initial list of facilities to be covered under the legislation, including beryllium vendors, Energy Department sites that used radioactive materials and facilities where atomic weapons workers may have been employed. Some of these facilities are no longer operating. The list names 317 sites in 37 states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia and the Marshall Islands. This preliminary list, responding to a December 2000 Presidential Executive Order, will be published next week in the Federal Register.

Also in Washington on Thursday, the department's new Environment, Safety and Health Worker Advocacy Advisory Committee held its first meeting. The committee chair is Emily Spieler, professor at West Virginia University College of Law. The 14-member committee's work includes providing advice on worker compensation policy issues and reviewing the department's worker advocacy program initiatives.

The proposed legislation, the preliminary list of facilities and information on the compensation program are available on the World Wide Web at http://www.eh.doe.gov/benefits. More information about the facilities will be available by the end of the month at the same website.

Workers who have questions about the compensation program may call the department's toll-free number. [Note 2/27/06: This program has been transferred to the Department of Labor. The DOL toll free number for assistance with this program is 1-866-888-3322.]

----

Put Off Missile Defense

International Herald Tribune
Thursday, January 11, 2001
THE NEW YORK TIMES
http://www.iht.com/articles/7109.htm

Given all the technological and budgetary uncertainties about building a missile defense system, it is hard to believe that the incoming Bush administration would be ready by March to approve groundbreaking at the first radar site. But that is what the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization seems to hope that it will do. Rushing ahead with this project would be a serious mistake.

That Pentagon unit plans to tell George W. Bush that he must order construction on a crucial radar system in Alaska to begin this March or risk not having it completed by 2005. That is the date by which a commission led by Donald Rumsfeld, now Mr. Bush's choice for defense secretary, predicted that North Korean missiles might be able to reach the United States. But the radar is only one element of a functioning defensive system. Until a workable missile interceptor technology is developed, no effective missile shield can be built. Meanwhile, negotiations have begun that could eliminate, or at least delay, North Korea's missile program.

March is too soon to expect a new administration to make a decision with such weighty potential consequences. Starting construction on the Alaska radar sets America on a path that would require it to give notice later this year that it intends to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Moscow has warned that that could jeopardize other treaties, including the two valuable nuclear arms reduction agreements negotiated by Mr. Bush's father a decade ago. That is not the kind of step a new president should be taking two months into his term, before his administration has had a chance to review its missile defense options or conduct an initial round of diplomatic consultations.

The land-based missile interceptor program bequeathed by the Clinton administration has undergone only three of its 19 planned tests. Two failed completely and the third was only a partial success. The fourth is not scheduled until some time this spring. Mr. Bush also wants to consider other kinds of systems, including sea-based interceptors. These might be perceived by Russia as less threatening, limiting the potential damage to arms control. Mr. Bush should first decide what kind of missile shield he wants to build before ordering construction of the appropriate tracking radar.

Mr. Rumsfeld, whose confirmation hearing will be held this Thursday, has ambitious plans for the Pentagon. He favors military pay raises and expensive new weapons acquisition programs as well as expanded plans for missile defense. Mr. Bush has rightly pledged that there will be a review of military plans before new programs are budgeted. That orderly approach is especially important on missile defense, where haste could inflict needless damage on arms control and vital alliances.

---

Elite Nuclear Forces To Be Opened

Associated Press
January 11, 2001 Filed at 3:40 p.m. ET
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Forces.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon will again allow members of the National Guard and Reserves to serve on teams of elite strategic nuclear forces. The decision means thousands of citizen soldiers will be able to join the highly screened forces that guard and control the nation's nuclear weapons.

It will also enable the Air Force and Navy to consider new ways to use reserve troops and guardsmen for jobs that are becoming increasingly difficult to fill due to declining military enrollment.

``A major structural barrier to full integration of the force has been shattered,'' Charles L. Cragin, the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs, said in a statement Thursday.

Reservists and guardsmen would still have to pass rigorous physical and psychological tests and submit to increased scrutiny of their personal lives.

``In today's environment of recruiting and retention challenges, the new policy will give senior leaders another option,'' Cragin said. ``Because the policy provides the same standard for both active and Reserve personnel, the senior leaders can be sure that any member who meets the standards of the program will be a full-up performer.''

During the Cold War, members of the National Guard and Reserves routinely served in positions transporting nuclear weapons and operating launch sites, but began to be excluded from those jobs as the military developed into a more professional, strategic force.

That exclusion was codified into law in 1993.

The policy reversal stems from suggestions made to the defense secretary in a study that examined ways to employ reserve forces and better integrate them into the entire military.

Despite the decision, resistance to the idea remains, particularly among some commanders who believe that reservists and guardsmen don't have the necessary training to serve in such posts.

The decision further heightens the Pentagon's reliance on the roughly 870,000 members of the National Guard and reserves.

With the active-duty military having shrunk by a third since the Cold War, such units have been used in nearly every recent operation overseas, from humanitarian relief to peacekeeping operations to the air war over Kosovo.

---

Rumsfeld Faces Senate Quiz on Missile Defense

Yahoo News
Politics News
Thursday January 11 12:48 AM ET
By John Whitesides
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010111/pl/congress_rumsfeld_dc_3.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With his confirmation as the new Pentagon (news - web sites) boss all but assured, Donald Rumsfeld faces a Senate hearing on Thursday that is certain to focus on questions about missile defense plans and the future of the U.S. military in a changing world.

Rumsfeld, gearing up for his second Pentagon turn after serving as defense secretary under President Gerald Ford from 1975 to 1977, will be quizzed by members of the Armed Services Committee about a host of tough decisions facing President-elect George W. Bush (news - web sites) on topics ranging from eliminating new weapons to modernizing the military.

At the top of the list will be questions on Bush's plans to deploy a missile defense shield, which has drawn criticism from not only Democratic lawmakers but also Russia, China and some U.S. allies in NATO (news - web sites).

Bush, who says a top-to-bottom review of the military will be a top priority, made his support for a missile defense system a key component of his presidential campaign.

He cemented that support with the choice of Rumsfeld, who in 1998 headed a bipartisan panel that concluded the threat of ballistic missile attack from states such as Iraq, North Korea (news - web sites) and Iran had been severely underestimated.

Those findings provided crucial ammunition for congressional supporters of a missile shield and helped push the Clinton administration forward on the issue, although a final decision on deployment was left to Bush.

Bush Policy Not Clear

The Bush administration has not made clear whether it will support development of the limited, land-based system that President Clinton (news - web sites) passed on last year, or move to a more ambitious sea or space-based plan.

``There's no question but that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the delivery systems for them is extensive across the world,'' Rumsfeld said in accepting Bush's nomination for another go-round at the Pentagon. ``And I consider that, myself, to be a threat.''

Committee members have presented Rumsfeld, expected to win easy confirmation, with 23 pages of potential questions he will face at Thursday's hearing.

The top-ranking committee members of both parties -- Republican John Warner of Virginia and Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan -- have praised the selection of the veteran Rumsfeld, who was the youngest defense secretary to ever assume the post when he took command of the Pentagon in 1975 at age 43.

But Rumsfeld, 68, who made the customary round of courtesy calls on senators last week, has been busy preparing for the hearing.

``Secretary-designate Rumsfeld is taking nothing for granted,'' said his spokesman, Jim Wilkinson. ``He is looking forward to a good give-and-take with the committee.''

Looking For Signals

Committee members will be looking for signals on Bush's direction on key policy issues. Bush said during the campaign the United States has been too quick to deploy military forces overseas and called for more defense spending while restructuring the military to make it more mobile and swift.

But Bush has promised only $4.5 billion in extra military spending a year, which will not go far in light of the increased priorities.

Bush's defense team is almost certain to cut some new weapons programs and faces tough choices, particularly between three tactical aircraft still in the development stage: the Air Force's F-22, an improved F-18 for the Navy and the multi-service Joint Strike Fighter, one of the biggest weapons programs ever.

Rumsfeld, along with Secretary of State-designate Colin Powell (news - web sites), is expected to be in the first group of Cabinet members confirmed by the Senate at a special afternoon session a few hours after Bush's inauguration on Jan. 20.

-------- u.s. nuc facilities

Reactors In The USA Have Cracked Shrouds

geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/mothersalert/jackshannon.html

Jack Shannon on nuclear dangers from GE plants:

During July of 1999, I made a presentation to the Town board of the Town of Oswego concerning the GE Boiling Water Reactors and the dangers associated with such reactors.

The reactors have inherent design flaws i.e., control rods coming up into the core from the bottom, but most disturbing to me is the fact that all of the GE reactors in the US have cracked "shrouds." A serious matter which no one seems to care about.

Additionally all US Nuclear Power Plants are now running out of room to store their depleted fuel elements and are beginning to store up to twice the amount of fuel elements without the benefit of new analysis or issuing new Safety Analysis Reports.

I suspect this is illegal as well as stupid. I am also aware of the manner in which the NRC has allowed the utilities to perform the existing safety analysis reports. All commercial power plants use, for their storage facilities, a Diffussion Theory program known as PDQ -7. This program is at least thirty years old. Unless the utilities are using a Monte Carlo program such as "KENO" or it's equivalent the calculations are seriously out of date and totally unreliable. The calculations have, furthermore, never been tested against any experiment simply because no experiments have ever been performed for a geometry pattern or loading densities similar to expended core fuel. The only way to test any kind of computer program, be it PDQ-5, PDQ-7, KENO, etc., is to normalize the computer program to a known experiment. The NRC ha s never done this, nor do they intend to do it.

The NRC is of the opinion that they need only to add boron plates or homogeneous boron to a storage system and everything is OK, well the NRC is wrong.

The NRC has yet to present an accident analysis that includes a loss of boron accident or an earthquake analysis which causes the entire storage system to fall into a big "mess."

Mostly the NRC is loaded with a bunch of incompetent nuclear "scientists" or those who will sell out for their salary.

The entire Nuclear Industry is now drifting into chaos with the politicians assuring the public that the intellectual level of the scientists in the programs [both NRC/DOE] is the same as it was during the days of the Manhattan project. Well, I hate to wake anyone up, but such is not the case.

The US will have an accident, sooner or later, that will exceed Chernobyl by orders of magnitude simply because the people in charge no longer know anything, and those of us who do can't get our organizations together to stop these incompetent fools refuse to act as a cohesive unit.

We have Green Peace, Save the Whales, the Sierra Club, GAP, etc., etc., etc., all working on a common problem as though they were all different problems. I hate to tell you folks that the PROBLEM is the corporations running the government and they don't care about the whales, the eagles, freedom, justice or anything else except the bucks and if we don't get together and take on one problem at a time we will lose.

Consider what would have happened if the Military in W.W.II decided to take out all of the Japanese held Islands all at once, none of the Islands would have been taken and we would have nothing but a bunch of dead Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. That is what is going to happen to us if we don't get our acts together and fight the war the way it should be fought.

So lets get together ladies and gentlemen or it will be all over for us sooner or later.

Respectively Submitted,

John P. Shannon, Major USMCR (Retired) 518-587-3245 Former Nuclear Reactor Physicist/Engineer and Manager of Health and Safety for the Naval Reactors Program before I wrote a report critical of the Naval Reactors largest Land Based Reactor site. Not only are the Naval Reactors Nuclear Power Plants a disaster, but everything else in the Naval Reactors Program is a disaster, including their training and operations.

The NRC has yet to present an accident analysis that includes a loss of boron accident or an earthquake analysis which causes the entire storage system to fall into a big "mess."

See http://www.geocities.com/mothersalert/earthquake.html from the March 13, 1995 issue of "The Nation" magazine.