------- Index of Articles
NUCLEAR
A world order designed to serve economic imperatives
N-might takes a backseat at R-Day parade
Changing of the guard portends change for environment
Rumsfeld backs missile defense plan
Bush Renews Pledge to Build Missile Defense
Missile defense pushed
THE TRAGEDY OF NUCLEAR TESTS IN NEVADA
Director Calls For Shutting Of Over 90% Of Nuke Plants In USA
Taft lobbies president to help Piketon plant
UTAH DECLARES "DAY OF REMEMBRANCE" FOR NUCLEAR VICTIMS
Bush Affirms Defense Plans
OTHER
Debt Relief P.C.
ACTIVISTS
NEW CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE CHATTANOOGA 3
-------- NUCLEAR
A world order designed to serve economic imperatives
Saturday, January 27, 2001
Irish Times
By Finian Cunningham
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2001/0127/wor9.htm
WORLD VIEW: We are entering a dangerous topsyturvy world where language is subverted in a way that would have abashed even George Orwell: danger is presented as security, violence as peace, and the poachers have become the gamekeepers.
Ireland, with its temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council, should be using its influence to debate world security and raise concern over what appears to be a new arms race. Unfortunately, as a conference organised by the peace group Afri will hear today, the evidence suggests this State is meekly going with the destructive flow of powerful interests.
First, let's go back 10 years. We were then promised a "new world order" in which democracy and the rule of international law would be cherished and protected. Western leaders galvanised the nations of the world to supposedly defend democracy and national sovereignty as the first instalment of their noble vision.
No matter that the Butcher of Baghdad was an erstwhile Western ally and Kuwait was, and still is, an oil-rich petty fiefdom. Western ideologues were cranking up a propaganda charm offensive, proclaiming a fresh start to international relations supposedly founded on noble values of mutual respect and cooperation - the realisation of the UN Charter, no less.
With the Cold War out of the way, so it was argued, the nations would now be free to act in unison to defend the foundations of democracy, even if it meant bombing miscreants back to the Stone Age.
Ten years on it is clear that the so-called new world order and its grandiose claims lie in ruins as sure as the cancer-eaten bodies of children in Iraq and former Yugoslavia. World security and the promise of a peace dividend have been shelved, although Western leaders still cynically use the language of human rights and democracy to justify their actions.
What is truly startling is how quickly the moral veil of the UN has been jettisoned. At the dawn of the new world order, enunciated by President George Bush snr, the moral authority of the UN was deemed to be a necessary illusion. Now the Western powers, primarily the US and the UK, are apparently emboldened enough to go it alone.
The UN-sanctioned Operation Desert Storm against Iraq was quickly followed by Operation Restore Hope in which the US unilaterally sent its troops and gunships into Somalia. Less than a decade later NATO would launch a war in Europe with the UN not even consulted.
Some observers did note that NATO bombing of the former Yugoslavia with radioactive depleted uranium shells was an illegal war, but by this stage President Clinton and Prime Minister Blair were past caring about such censure.
OMINOUSLY, the American dissident Noam Chomsky says the NATO action in former Yugoslavia signals a contempt for international law not seen since the 1930s.
He notes that the real agenda behind the cynical use of this gratuitous aggression, dressed up in the language of human rights and defence of democracy, is the stamping of authority in a world order designed to serve Western economic imperatives of so-called free markets.
In this way the new world order is not much different from the old. One difference, however, was that the Mutually Assured Destruction of the Cold War served to curb Western aggression. That check is no longer there, and the Western powers increasingly feel free to wield the doctrine of Might is Right.
It is somehow fitting that one of the architects of the new world order, George Bush, is now succeeded by his son. Even before taking office, Bush jnr signalled a more aggressive military policy, primarily in his backing of the National Missile Defence (Star Wars) programme. Concerns among Western allies, notably France and Germany, are brushed aside in a manner which confirms the adage of absolute power corrupting absolutely.
This together with his tougher diplomatic stance towards Russia is predictably leading to a deteriorating international climate, fuelling insecurity and a new phase of the arms race.
Russia was reported earlier this month to have reintroduced nuclear weapons into the Baltic region, after having removed them from eastern Europe when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
Observers note that due to the dilapidated state of its conventional armed forces, Russia is now relying even more on its huge nuclear arsenal as a deterrent.
President Vladimir Putin is also making overtures to China for a new military alliance as a counterweight to the Star Wars initiative and the expansion of NATO in Europe.
The joining of the NATO-inspired Partnership for Peace (another example of Orwellian doublespeak) by Ireland only serves to reinforce this negative dynamic. It's all a far cry from what was heroically promised in the heady days of the new world order. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, we now have increasing insecurity in world relations and more money than ever being squandered on reloading the world's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.
The post-Cold War continuation of the arms industry should not be surprising. It is the concomitant of Western world power relations. Today's use of arms and aggression is the continuation of last century's gunboat diplomacy when foreign markets were blown open for exploitation by Western capital. Of course, it is finessed with better PR these days.
The integration of the arms industry with the conventional economy is so deep that Western governments have become addicted to it. This is what President Dwight D. Eisenhower meant when he warned of the "military-industrial complex".
Joe Murray of Afri, organiser of today's conference in Kildare, "Securing Our Future?", fears that Ireland, the secondbiggest exporter of computer software in the world behind the US, is becoming ever more complicit in the arms industry, and specifically that Irish software is being used in the development of so-called smart missile systems.
Figures from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment highlight these concerns.
In 1996 the number of military export licences issued by the Department was 81. By last year the figure had risen to 420, an increase of 700 per cent.
Irish politicians, including the Nobel Peace Prize winner John Hume, have hailed Ireland's new-found wealth and investment from US firms as the "fruits of peace" after 30 years of conflict on this island.
But for many Irish citizens this country's growing complicity in world militarisation and aggression is a bitter if not deadly poisonous fruit.
Finian Cunningham is a journalist in Belfast.
-------- europe
N-might takes a backseat at R-Day parade
Saturday, January 27, 2001
The Hindu
By Our Special Correspondent
http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/2001/01/27/stories/01270003.htm
NEW DELHI, JAN. 26. Unlike the last two years, the ``show of strength'' on the Raj Path today was a sober affair.
In the equipment displayed, there was no sense of urgency in demonstrating India's nuclear status. Two years ago, the limelight at the Republic Day parade was hogged by the display of the nuclear-capable Agni missile. Last year, it was celebrated in the backdrop of the Kargil war.
Ironically, the Agni was not on display even though it has now become a battle-worthy weapon system. There is speculation that the decision not to display the missile is to send a positive signal to China that India's nuclear deterrence capability is not directed against it. In fact, India waited for the departure of Mr. Li Peng, the number two man in the Chinese political hierarchy, to leave before testing the Agni-II earlier this month.
The Prithvi, which can carry a nuclear warhead up to 300 km, was on show. India, however, may not deploy Prithvi as a tactical nuclear missile, choosing the Agni and aircraft such as the TU-22, which are likely to be imported from Russia, as the principal nuclear delivery systems. The ambiguity associated with Prithvi, therefore, does not necessarily symbolise India's nuclear status.
The equipment display, however, did project India's capacity to strike indepth with conventional weapons. Not surprisingly, the SU-30s and the Jaguar planes acquired a high profile during the show. Both these planes can strike key high value targets across its western borders. However, their utility is still Pakistan- centric. The SU-30s will acquire greater relevance against China only after their range is fully exploited. That would depend on the still-awaited acquisition of air-to-air refuelling tankers.
For the first time, India's capacity to credibly strike far away land targets from sea was on show. Both the Sindhushastra submarine and the Talwar class ship, whose models were on show, are being equipped with Klub missiles. There was no noticeable change in the rest of the equipment which rolled down Raj Path. The Arjun tanks spearheaded the display of the armoured columns. The parade showed the OSA-AK mobile systems for countering hostile aircraft.
-------- u.s. nuc weapons
Changing of the guard portends change for environment
Saturday, January 27, 2001
Environmental News Network
By David Suzuki
http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/01/01272001/bush_41605.asp
America's influence on world politics, economics and culture is greater today than ever before. So it comes as no surprise that the world is watching closely as a new president enters the White House.
Scientists and researchers are particularly interested because President George W. Bush's focus on military issues and apparent lack of interest in the environment could change the direction of research funding as well as foreign and domestic policies.
Bush's record has shown that he is far from an environmental leader. While he was governor of Texas, for example, Houston surpassed Los Angeles as America's smoggiest city. And if his choice for leader of the Environmental Protection Agency, Gov. Christine Whitman, is any indication, he has not changed his priorities. Whitman has said that she plans to make the agency more flexible when it comes to the enforcement of environmental regulations.
Much to the chagrin of scientists, in an interview with the New York Times, Whitman also claimed that evidence about global warming was "uncertain" and then confused global warming with ozone depletion, saying "clearly there's a hole in the ozone that has been identified. But I saw a study the other day that showed it was closing. It's not clear, the cause and effect, as we would like it to be."
In contrast, one of Bush's biggest research priorities is likely to be the military. He has consistently talked about the importance of "homeland defense," and both he and his choice for defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, are champions of a missile defense system, even though building such a system violates the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
In fact, their plans go beyond anything proposed by the Clinton administration and look very much like Reagan's famous "Star Wars" plan using space-based weapons.
Proponents of missile defense say that it will defend the United States against "nations of concern" such as North Korea or Iraq. But physicists and other scientists say such a system will be outrageously expensive and probably never work. Even if it does, countries with the technological capacity to build a nuclear weapon, a powerful missile and a sophisticated guidance system will no doubt have the technical know-how to develop simple steps to fool an American missile defense.
In fact, such a system could destabilize the current balance of power. After all, Russia still has nuclear missiles ready to launch at the United States and its allies. If the US had a missile defense, it might be seen as an offensive advantage and could push cash-poor Russia into maintaining its deteriorating arsenal on alert, increasing the likelihood of an accidental launch or other disaster.
Furthermore, "nations of concern" will not simply lay down their arms and give up their weapons programs in the face of a missile defense system. Instead, they are far more likely to turn their efforts to ways to defeat such a system, or they could focus on other areas such as biological weapons. These arguably pose a much greater threat because dispersal of a biological agent like anthrax or smallpox could be done from within the borders of the United States at a far lower cost and lower degree of technical sophistication.
Then there are the ethical questions of building a missile defense system and spending such an outrageous amount of money on an unproven, destabilizing technology when other areas of research - areas in public and environmental health, for example, are in desperate need of funding. The Union of Concerned Scientists calls missile defense proposals "misguided and irresponsible."
To discuss this topic with others, visit the discussion forum at www.davidsuzuki.org
---
Rumsfeld backs missile defense plan
Saturday, January 27, 2001
Pioneer Planet
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
MICHAEL KILIAN
http://www.pioneerplanet.com/seven-days/sat/news/docs/023555.htm
WASHINGTON Turning campaign rhetoric into policy, President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared Friday that the administration intends to deploy the controversial national missile defense system despite opposition from Russia and NATO.
``We will work to defend our people and our allies against growing threats, the threats of missiles, information warfare, the threats of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons,'' Bush said after Rumsfeld was sworn in during a ceremony at the White House.
Speaking later at the Pentagon, Rumsfeld said Russian and NATO opposition to the national missile defense system and the restrictions of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty should not prevent the U.S. from protecting itself.
``The president has not been ambivalent about this,'' he said. ``He says he intends to deploy a missile defense.''
While Bush said he planned to keep a campaign pledge to reduce U.S. nuclear warheads as a way to spur new arms-control talks with Moscow, Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that Russia would scrap all existing agreements if Washington backs out of the ABM treaty.
On Friday in Moscow, Putin again called on the new administration to uphold the pact.
But in Washington, Rumsfeld described a firm position.
``We're in a very different world,'' Rumsfeld said. ``The Soviet Union is gone. The principal threats facing the United States are not the fear of a strategic nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union. . . . I think (the ABM treaty) ought not to inhibit a country, a president, an administration, a nation from fashioning offense and defensive capabilities that will provide for our security in a notably different national security environment.''
Rumsfeld plans to travel to Munich, Germany, next week to attend an annual European conference on security issues, where he will have his first chance to raise the missile defense issue with European allies.
Former President Bill Clinton delayed a missile defense deployment decision last September, leaving the issue for Bush.
Russia and China say the system could reignite the arms race. Canada and European allies also have expressed reservations over such a program.
Rumsfeld, a strong missile defense advocate, has said the shield would defend against states seen as a threat, such as North Korea and Iran.
On other matters, Rumsfeld said:
A review will be held on whether to recommend closing additional military bases as a cost-cutting measure.
He still agrees with a letter he signed as a private citizen supporting efforts by the Iraqi opposition to topple Saddam Hussein.
And in a thinly veiled rebuke of the CIA, he said the U.S. intelligence community must be ``improved and elevated . . . to fit the demands facing us in the world.''
This report includes information from the Associated Press and New York Times.
---
Bush Renews Pledge to Build Missile Defense
President also says he'll reduce size of U.S. nuclear arsenal
Saturday, January 27, 2001
San Francisco Chronicle
New York Times
Steven Lee Myers
mailto:feedback@sfgate.com
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/01/27/MN139250.DTL
Washington -- Treading into national security policy after devoting most of the week to education, abortion and tax cuts, President Bush said yesterday that he intends to keep his campaign pledge to reduce the nation's nuclear arsenal as he moves ahead with construction of a defense against ballistic missiles.
Bush reiterated a proposal he made last spring and suggested he will proceed with reductions in nuclear warheads and the construction of a missile defense as a way to spur new arms-control negotiations with the Russians.
"I think it's important for us, commensurate with our ability to keep the peace, to reduce our nuclear arsenal on our own," Bush said after meeting at the White House with a bipartisan group of governors on his education proposals released this week. "And I'm going to fulfill that campaign promise. That may, you know -- we'll see how that affects the possible arms talks."
Bush made his remarks, in response to a question, a day after receiving a letter from Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, outlining major issues facing both countries and calling for greater cooperation.
Bush said he had not responded to Putin's letter, though he planned to, joking that he had read about the letter, presumably in the media, "before it hit Washington." He made it clear, however, that he did not intend to back away from his commitment to build a missile defense, even though it is now one of the most contentious issues between the United States and Russia.
"My point is, is that I want America to lead the nation -- lead the world --
toward a more safe world when it comes to nuclear weaponry," he added, emphasizing his intent to build a missile shield and reduce the number of nuclear warheads. "On the offensive side we can do so, and we can do so on the defensive side, as well."
While he has moved aggressively on the issues of abortion, education and taxes, Bush and his national security advisers have moved more cautiously on matters of foreign affairs.
Secretary of State Colin Powell swept into the State Department with a flourish, greeting the diplomatic corps at two pep rallies this week but outlining few details of how he intends to sell the administration's policies, including missile defense, which is strongly opposed by Russia and China.
Across the Potomac, Donald Rumsfeld began his second tenure as secretary of defense, wrestling with the Pentagon's budget and reining in the armed services' lobbying for more money.
Neither Powell nor Rumsfeld has appointed his senior aides -- a point Rumsfeld noted when he made his first public appearances as Bush's defense secretary yesterday. Only yesterday did Bush hold formal ceremonies at the White House to swear in Powell and Rumsfeld, his two most important foreign policy advisers, along with Vice President Dick Cheney and his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice.
As of last year, the United States had 7,519 nuclear warheads on missiles, submarines or bombers, while Russia had 6,464. Under the second strategic arms control treaty, or Start II, both countries are supposed to reduce their arsenals to roughly 3,000 to 3,500 warheads.
The Russian parliament ratified Start II last year, though with conditions that many Republicans in Congress say they oppose. The two countries have also agreed in principle to a third round of negotiations aimed at reducing the numbers to 2,000 to 2,500 warheads.
Asked yesterday when the administration will begin negotiations with Putin, Powell replied simply, "In due time."
Bush, as he did during the campaign, indicated that he is prepared, after a Pentagon review, to move ahead with reductions in the American arsenal unilaterally. Though he did not spell out his rationale yesterday, he suggested during the campaign that such steps would clear the way for a new era in arms control and, possibly, Russian acceptance of an American missile defense.
At the Pentagon yesterday, Rumsfeld reiterated his argument that the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty, negotiated with the Soviet Union in 1972, is no longer relevant at a time when more countries are developing missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads and striking the United States.
--------
Missile defense pushed
01/01/27
Lincoln Journal-Star
The Associated Press
http://www.journalstar.com/nation?story_id=3302&date=20010127&past=
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/news/oregonian/01/01/wr_71miss27.frame
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/national/miss27.shtml
http://www.courierpress.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi?200101/27+missile-012701_news.html+20010127
http://www.herald.com/content/today/news/national/digdocs/111460.htm
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Friday he intends to go ahead with plans for building a nationwide missile defense, despite Russian objections, and also for reducing U.S. nuclear weapons.
In comments at the White House, Bush recalled his pledge on those subjects during the presidential campaign, and he said, "I'm going to fulfill that campaign promise." He gave no details but stressed the importance of reducing U.S. nuclear forces, "commensurate with our ability to keep the peace."
"My point is I want America to lead the world toward a more safe world when it comes to nuclear weaponry," Bush said. "On the offensive side we can do so, and we can do so on the defensive side as well."
At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that although it was too early to discuss details of how the administration will proceed with the development of a national missile defense, "the president has not been ambivalent about this. He intends to deploy a missile defense capability for the country."
The Clinton administration had pursued development of such a system to protect all 50 states, but President Clinton decided late last summer that the technology was not sufficiently mature to make a firm commitment to deploy it. Clinton also said more time was needed to address the strong objections of Russia and China, as well as the misgivings of many of America's European allies.
During the campaign Bush said that if elected he would make missile defense a top priority and deploy it even if it meant abandoning the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty that prohibits nationwide missile defenses.
In Moscow on Friday, President Vladimir Putin spoke out against missile defenses and said Russia expects the United States to adhere to the ABM treaty. Putin has warned that Russia will scrap all existing arms control agreements if Washington backs out of the treaty. He did not repeat that warning Friday, but said Russia was actively working with its partners and "counts on joint work" to preserve the ABM treaty.
Rumsfeld, in his Pentagon news conference, was asked about his comment at his Senate confirmation hearing that the ABM treaty is "ancient history," implying that it is no longer relevant.
"It was a long time ago that that treaty was fashioned," he said, noting that it predated his first term as defense secretary in 1975-77.
"We're in a very different world," he said. "The Soviet Union's gone. The principal threats facing the United States are not the fear of a strategic nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union. And it strikes me that we should accept the treaty in that sense. And I personally believe it ought not to inhibit a country, a president, an administration, a nation, from fashioning offensive and defensive capabilities that will provide for our security in a notably different national security environment."
Asked whether a decision would be made within the next few months on deploying such a system, Rumsfeld said, "I don't want to put a time limit on myself."
The next flight test of the missile interceptor under development is expected this spring, although no firm date has been set.
Rumsfeld said he supported Bush's view that a national missile defense is needed to deter missile attack.
"(Bush) has concluded that it is not in our country's interests to perpetuate vulnerability" to such attacks or threats of attack, Rumsfeld said. "And the Russians know - they have to know - that the kinds of capabilities that are being discussed are not capabilities that threaten them in any way."
The Russian government is concerned that while an initial U.S. missile defense system would be too thin to neutralize Russia's nuclear forces, it could form the basis for a more robust system later.
China, which has a much smaller nuclear missile force than Russia, is equally concerned. European countries have raised questions about the U.S. plan and want to preserve the ABM treaty.
Rumsfeld said he planned to attend a European security conference Feb. 3 in Munich, Germany, where he will meet with many of his counterparts for the first time to discuss missile defense and other issues.
--------
THE TRAGEDY OF NUCLEAR TESTS IN NEVADA, 50 YEARS LATER
JANUARY 27, 1951, THE NEVADA TEST SITE WENT INTO OPERATION BY EXPLODING AN ATOMIC BOMB.
By Norman Solomon
Pravda,
January 27, 2001
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/01/27/1901.html
As golden anniversaries go, it's a somber occasion. In a forlorn expanse of desert scarcely an hour's drive northwest of Las Vegas, on Jan. 27, 1951, the Nevada Test Site went into operation by exploding an atomic bomb.
During more than a decade, mushroom clouds often rose toward the sky. Winds routinely carried radioactive fallout to communities in Utah, Nevada and northern Arizona. Meanwhile, news media dutifully conveyed U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission announcements to downwind residents: "There is no danger".
In the region, journalists followed the national media spin and threw in some extra bravado. "'Baby' A-Blast May Provide Facts on Defense Against Atomic Attack," said a headline in the Las Vegas Sun on March 13, 1955.
That week brought the unveiling of a taller detonation tower - 500 feet instead of the previous 300-foot height. The Las Vegas Review-Journal informed readers that the change would make them even more secure: "Use of taller towers from which atomic devices are detonated at the Nevada Test Site introduces an added angle of safety to residents living outside the confines of the Atomic Energy Commission's continental testing ground, nuclear scientists believe."
Eleven days later, when the "added angle of safety" did not prevent a hot storm of radioactive particles from blanketing the city, the Review-Journal reported that the day's events were benign. "Fallout on Las Vegas and vicinity following this morning's detonation was very low and without any effects on health," the newspaper explained.
Pundits of the day were eagerly patrolling ideological frontiers for the benefit of all Americans. The Los Angeles Examiner published a column by International News Service writer Jack Lotto under the headline "On Your Guard: Reds Launch 'Scare Drive' Against U.S. Atomic Tests." The article warned: "A big Communist 'fear' campaign to force Washington to stop all American atomic hydrogen bomb tests erupted this past week."
It was a popular theme among prominent commentators like syndicated columnist David Lawrence, whose wisdom appeared in the Washington Post and other leading newspapers. "The truth is," he wrote in spring 1955, "there isn't the slightest proof of any kind that the 'fallout' as a result of tests in Nevada has ever affected any human being anywhere outside the testing ground itself."
By then, children and others living in downwind areas were beginning to develop leukemia. As time passed, people in affected areas suffered extraordinarily high rates of cancer and thyroid ills. Functioning in tandem, the news media and the federal government continued to deny that nuclear testing was a health hazard.
In August 1980, nearly three decades after the Nevada site opened for nuclear business, the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations concluded: "All evidence suggesting that radiation was having harmful effects, be it on the sheep or the people, was not only disregarded but actually suppressed."
That assessment was no surprise to thousands of downwind residents like Jay Truman, who grew up in southwestern Utah under the shadow of the test site. After watching many friends die, he had no interest in pretending that the U.S. government did not kill his schoolmates.
When I met Truman in 1980, he was already an expert on nuclear testing. Today, as director of the Downwinders organization (www.downwinders.org), he's still fighting the good fight.
From the Rockies to remote Russian sites, nuclear industries have taken an enormous toll. Victims include Native American uranium miners, nuclear-plant workers and far-flung residents, soldiers exposed to atomic bomb tests at close range, Pacific islanders, and people whose lives were forever changed during a few split seconds in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
"Nuclear testing made the Cold War possible," Truman said a few days ago. "Without it, humanity could never have developed and deployed the weapons that still stand ever-ready to wipe our species off this planet."
Unable to admit the inevitable health effects of nuclear tests, "all governments of all testing nations learned how to -- and perfected being able to - lie to their own citizens."
Fifty years after the first mushroom cloud overshadowed the Nevada desert, military contractors and their allies are eager to spread the news about the latest technologies offering "an added angle of safety." In 2001, Star Wars is back on the media horizon. It's never too late to make a killing.
--------
Public Citizen's Director Calls For Shutting Of Over 90% Of Nuke Power Plants In USA
Sat, 27 Jan 2001
From: "Bill Smirnow" <smirnowb@ix.netcom.com>
Reply-to: smirnowb@ix.netcom.com
http://www.geocities.com/mothersalert/violations.html
Public Citizen Report -- August 10, 1999
Regulations Violated at Nuclear Reactors Across Country
Public Citizen Study Finds Government's Failure to Enforce Regulations Undermines Safety
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Safety has been compromised at nuclear reactors throughout the United States, with more than 90 percent of the country's reactors run in violation of government safety regulations over the last three years, a Public Citizen study has found. Rather than holding nuclear utilities accountable for violating these regulations, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has established an amnesty program that will last until March 30, 2001. This amnesty means that the NRC only holds utilities accountable for the most egregious rule violations.
The study, Amnesty Irrational, found that between October 1996 and May 1999, 102 of the country's 111 reactors were operated outside the safety parameters established in their licenses. When a nuclear reactor is operated outside these safety parameters it is called operating "outside design basis." During the three years analyzed, utilities operated their nuclear reactors "outside design basis" more than 500 times, the study found.
Utilities have failed to follow rules pertaining to such key safety systems as the emergency core cooling system and the electrical cables that control the nuclear reactor, the records revealed. Additionally, in some instances, a single event could have prevented the functioning of safety systems needed to do such things as shut down the reactor, cool the radioactive fuel in the reactor's core and prevent the release of radiation into the environment.
"Safety has been compromised at nuclear reactors across the United States," said James Riccio, staff attorney for Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project. "In some cases, safety margins were significantly reduced, if not eliminated."
When a nuclear utility operates its reactor "outside design basis," it is impossible for the NRC or the utility to determine whether the reactor poses an undue risk to public health and safety. The more often a nuclear reactor is operated "outside design basis," the less certain that the reactor and its safety systems will operate as designed.
The NRC has long known that design basis problems were undermining the safety of nuclear reactors it was supposed to regulate. However, due to the potential financial impact on the nuclear industry, the NRC has obfuscated the issue and delayed taking action, the report says.
"The NRC has ignored these important safety issues for decades," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project. "If these nuclear reactors don't meet safety requirements, they should be shut down until they do."
Design basis issues already have contributed to the closure of three nuclear reactors: Haddam Neck, and Millstone Unit 1 in Connecticut, and Maine Yankee in Maine. However, the design basis issues that resulted in these shutdowns were not identified by the utilities. These problems came to light only because of events or whistleblower allegations that prompted NRC inspections. Futhermore, Public Citizen has found that the same design basis problems that resulted in these shutdowns exist at other reactors throughout the U.S.
"The NRC's amnesty program is an irrational move by an ineffective regulator and will not address the significant design basis issues that still exist at nuclear reactors across the United States," Riccio said.
Those reactors that have filed the most design basis event reports with the NRC are listed below.
REACTORS REPORTING "OUTSIDE DESIGN BASIS" 1996 -1999
Reactor Unit # Owner State Reports Number
VERMONT YANKEE 1 VT Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. VT 42
PILGRIM 1 Boston Edison Co. MA 27
THREE MILE ISLAND 1 GPU Nuclear Corp. PA 26
COOK 2 Indiana/Michigan Power Co. MI 22
COOK 1 Indiana/Michigan Power Co. MI 18
POINT BEACH 1 Wisconsin Electric Power Co. WI 18
POINT BEACH 2 Wisconsin Electric Power Co. WI 18
MILLSTONE 1 Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. CT 16
OYSTER CREEK 1 GPU Nuclear Corp. NJ 16
MILLSTONE 3 Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. CT 16
PRAIRIE ISLAND 1 Northern States Power Co. MN 14
CATAWBA 2 Duke Power Co. SC 14
DIABLO CANYON 2 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. CA 14
NINE MILE POINT 2 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. NY 14
HADDAM NECK 1 Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. CT 13
PRAIRIE ISLAND 2 Northern States Power Co. MN 13
OCONEE 3 Duke Power Co. SC 12
DIABLO CANYON 1 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. CA 11
OCONEE 2 Duke Power Co. SC 11
CATAWBA 1 Duke Power Co. SC 10
DAVIS-BESSE 1 Toledo Edison Co. OH 10
NINE MILE POINT 1 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. NY 10
OCONEE 1 Duke Power Co. SC 10
PALISADES 1 Consumers Power Co. MI 10
INDIAN POINT 3 New York Power Authority NY 10
INDIAN POINT 2 Consolidated Edison Co. NY 9
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
Taft lobbies president to help Piketon plant
Sat, 27 Jan 2001
Ohio's Greatest Home Newspaper
Jonathan Riskind Dispatch Washington Bureau Chief
WASHINGTON -- Ohio Gov. Bob Taft yesterday lobbied President Bush to stick with the $630 million plan to put southern Ohio's uranium enrichment plant on standby after the facility is closed in June.
In one of the Bush administration's first acts, the Energy Department suspended the plan written by the Clinton administration and held up the initial installment of $161 million, pending a review by Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham.
Taft, one of 17 governors who met with Bush to discuss the president's education-reform proposal, gave Bush a copy of a letter sent to Abraham. The letter referred to Bush's campaign commitment to the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon and asked that the initiative go forward as planned.
Bush replied that he knows it's an important issue for Ohio, Taft said.
Republican Sens. Mike DeWine and George V. Voinovich of Ohio, and Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland of Lucasville also have sent letters to Bush urging him to keep the initiative alive.
Taft said he is optimistic that Abraham will release the money.
The suspension of the program comes on the heels of a Jan. 19 opinion issued by the General Accounting Office, an independent investigative agency, that the $630 million was being used improperly.
The money -- part of a $725 million pot left over from the 1998 privatization of USEC, formerly known as the U.S. Enrichment Corp. -- can be used for expenses of privatization. But the plan, announced in October by former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, pays for expenses not covered by that definition, the accounting-office opinion said.
The opinion does not carry the force of law.
Ohio officials have said they are confident the Bush administration will side with legal opinions issued by the Energy Department and the White House Office of Management and Budget under the Clinton administration that the money can be used in the way Richardson outlined.
The money must flow by March if preparations for putting the plant on standby, including weatherization steps, are to be completed by the time the plant ceases operations in June, Taft said.
After USEC closes the Piketon plant, the country will have only a single enrichment plant. Located in Paducah, Ky., it also is operated by USEC.
The Piketon plant made weapons- grade uranium for the nation's Cold War atomic-defense program and now manufactures commercial- grade material used as fuel for nuclear power plants.
Placing the plant on standby would save at least 1,200 jobs. The initiative also includes a plan to launch an advanced enrichment technology pilot program at Piketon. jriskind@dispatch.com
-------- utah
UTAH DECLARES JANUARY 27, 2001 "DAY OF REMEMBRANCE" FOR ITS NUCLEAR VICTIMS
COMMEMORATION OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF ATOMIC TESTING IN NEVADA
JANUARY 27, 1951 - JANUARY 27, 2001
http://www.downwinders.org/launch.htm
UTAH'S GOVERNOR LEAVITT AND SALT LAKE CITY MAYOR ROSS "ROCKY" ANDERSON PROCLAIM "DAY OF REMEMBRANCE"
At the request of Downwinders and survivors of the regions' uranium miners, January 27, 2001 has been declared a "Day of Remembrance" for Cold War nuclear victims. January 27 marks the 50th anniversary of the start of nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site. Downwinders and the survivors of uranium miners from the Four Corners region will gather in Salt Lake City that day to commemorate the victims from 50 years of Cold War nuclear activities.
A press conference and rally will be held at the Utah Capitol Rotunda at 1:30 to 2:30 p.m. on January 27th. Afterward they will meet at Room 324 in the Union Building at the University of Utah 3:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m., for a special showing of "Return of Navajo Boy" and other films on the 50 year legacy of nuclear testing and uranium mining. Discussions will also be held on compensation for the victims and information and assistance available for those interested in applying. The public is urged to attend!
-------- us nuc politics
Bush Affirms Defense Plans
Saturday, January 27, 2001
Washington Post
By Mike Allen
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53683-2001Jan26?language=printer
President Bush declared yesterday that he will forge ahead with his campaign promise to cut the nation's stock of nuclear weapons but said his plan to deploy a missile defense shield is also a necessary part of keeping the peace.
Bush's remarks came on the same day that Russian President Vladimir Putin warned he is intent on preserving the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which precludes a national missile defense system for either side. At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the United States is no longer bound by the treaty, signed in 1972, because the world has changed so much since then.
The comments of Bush and Rumsfeld offered further evidence that the administration plans to go ahead with missile defense despite the objections of other nations. In his most extensive comments on foreign policy since his inauguration last weekend, Bush said he is determined to bolster "the strength and authority of America around the world."
Later, taking questions after a meeting in the White House Cabinet Room with 17 governors of both parties, Bush said he wants America to "lead the world toward a more safe world when it comes to nuclear weaponry."
"On the offensive side we can do so, and we can do so on the defensive side, as well," he said.
During his campaign, Bush said that if he was elected, the United States would reduce its weapons stocks even if Russia did not reciprocate. In a May speech, he said it "should be possible to reduce the number of American nuclear weapons significantly further than what has been agreed to under START II," a treaty signed by the United States and Russia in 1993. That agreement required both countries to slash their nuclear arsenals from more than 6,000 deployed weapons to between 3,000 and 3,500 weapons by 2007.
Bush said yesterday, "I think it's important for us, commensurate with our ability to keep the peace, to reduce our nuclear arsenal on our own. I'm going to fulfill that campaign promise."
After swearing in Rumsfeld at an Oval Office ceremony, Bush said that missiles constitute one of the "growing threats" facing the nation. Bush said the United States will "promote the peace by refining the way wars are fought" by taking "full advantage of revolutionary new technologies."
Later, in his first news conference as Bush's defense secretary, Rumsfeld reiterated his belief that the 1972 ABM treaty should not be allowed to stand in the way of deploying a national missile defense system. "It was a long time ago that that treaty was fashioned," Rumsfeld said. "We're in a very different world. The Soviet Union is gone."
Earlier, at an Oval Office swearing-in ceremony for Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Bush said, "America remains involved in the world, by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom."
He added: "We need a foreign policy that serves America's vital interests and speaks for our highest ideals."
After the governors' meeting, Bush reiterated his opposition to using federal money to pay for research on fetal tissue or stem cells derived from abortions. An aide said the remark likely is a precursor to blocking federal funding for research using such tissues or cells.
"I believe there are some wonderful opportunities for adult stem cell research," Bush said. "I believe we can find stem cells from fetuses that died a natural death. And I do not support research from aborted fetuses."
Bush also announced he will host British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Camp David on Feb. 23 and 24 for "a working visit." Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien is to have dinner with Bush at the White House on Feb. 5, and Bush will meet with Mexican President Vicente Fox on Feb. 16 at Fox's ranch in Mexico.
The new president has had 12 introductory telephone conversations with foreign leaders.
Staff writer Thomas E. Ricks contributed to this report.
-------- OTHER
-------- imf / world bank
Debt Relief P.C.
David Bryden Jubilee 2000/USA 202-783-0214
January 4, 2001
To: Friends of Jubilee
From: Jubilee Transition team
Much progress has been made toward real awareness in the U.S. of the need for definitive debt cancellation, and some good steps have been taken toward making that a reality. Still, the work of the Jubilee campaign is far from done. Eight months ago, at the urging of Jubilee South and many of you, the Steering Committee agreed to continue the campaign beyond its original end date.
We are ready to shift the campaign to a new structure that is more open, more inclusive, and more appropriate for the long-haul work ahead. We hope your organization will continue to be - or will become - an active part of what will now be called the Jubilee USA Network, and help sustain the effort to achieve a just resolution to the debt burden of countries in the global South. The Jubilee 2000/USA platform will continue to form the basis for our debt cancellation work, although new emphases, new challenges and new strategies will be discerned together as we move into the future.
Specifically we invite your group to send a representative to a meeting in Denver on the weekend of February 16-18 to celebrate the success we have seen thus far and launch the next stage of the Jubilee campaign in the U.S. A detailed agenda and preparatory materials will be follow very soon, as will information about logistics.
The gathering is open to any group or organization that is interested in being a part of the Network Council, an expansion of the current Steering Committee. The Network Council will include representatives of the national organizations now on the Steering Committee, representatives of local or regional coalitions or groups working for Jubilee and debt cancellation, and any new national groups that are interested in membership. The new structure is designed to broaden the membership of the campaign and to create space for a wider range of voices from the north and the south in developing Jubilee's policies and strategies.
The Network Council is open to participation by any organization or coalition:
that agrees with and is committed to advancing the platform of the Network and works to embody the principles of equity, justice and sustainability;
participates regularly in Network activities and, · at a minimum, periodically reports on other debt-related activities of the organization to the Network;
pays an annual sliding-scale fee that can be waived as necessary. (Fees will be modest and based on size of organizational budget, but the Network Council will be expected to help raise the budget.)
Where the option exists, small, individual local groups will be asked to become part of local or regional coalitions (existing or new, specifically Jubilee or broader) and can be represented on the Network Council through a coalition representative.
The Network Council will be the primary decision-making body of the Network, meeting once or twice a year to make broad policy decisions, approve a strategic plan and budget and select a Network Coordinating Committee from among Network Council members. The Coordinating Committee selections will be made with sensitivity to diversity in terms of size and structure of organization, gender, region, race, ethnicity, class, etc. This Committee will represent the Network Council, working with the staff to interpret and implement decisions of the Network Council.
The Network will also ultimately establish Working Groups that will study issues and organize events and activities. Working Groups will be open to all Network participants.
The February meeting will give us an opportunity to confirm or adjust this structure and direction for the Jubilee Network; to assess together our goals and strategies; and take mutual responsibility for the budget necessary to continue the work of Jubilee.
To help us plan logistics, we would appreciate an email (comments@neerucc.net) or fax (202-832-5195 marked "Jubilee") response by January 16 indicating whether you think someone from your group will be able to attend the Denver meeting. More formal registration information will be sent soon. Thanks!
Note: This message references the Platform, which you can read by clicking on: http://www.j2000usa.org/campaign/platform.html
Details about the Jubilee Meeting in Denver, CO February 16-18.
On Friday and Saturday we will be meeting at the First Unitarian Church, 1400 Lafayette St. On Sunday we will be meeting at the AFSC office, 901 W 14th Ave., #7 (Courthouse Square Bldg.)
== Please contact the Colorado AFSC office to register, request an information packet with airport bus information, directions to the meeting location, and information about housing. The meeting locations are easy to get to by bus from the airport, but you should count on 1.5 hours each way.
AFSC Colorado 901 W. 14th Avenue #7 Denver, CO 80204 303-623-3464 phone (Sharon or Larry) 303-623-3492 fax s_king@qwest.net (Please include your address and phone number in emails)
Tentative Schedule. Registration table will open at 4:00 p.m. on Friday atthe First Unitarian Church. This is where people should come to. The evening meal will be provided at the church and the evening session will begin at 7:00 p.m.. Sessions will be planned all day and in the evening on Saturday and all morning ending at 3:00 p.m. on Sunday. The meals will be at the meeting sights or within walking distance.
= Jess Champagne Berkeley H23 PO Box 200457, New Haven, CT 06520 203-436-0581 =
-------- activists
NEW CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE CHATTANOOGA 3
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:56:32 -0500 (EST)
From: lynx <circlealpha@yahoo.com>
by International Committee To Support the Chattanooga 3
http://www.ainfos.ca/
The trial against the Chattanooga 3 activists, arrested at a protest at city hall in downtown Chattanooga, Tennessee, was finally held on January 9-12, 2000, and resulted in convictions of each defendant on all charges. They now face 6-18 months in prison. Lorenzo Komboa Ervin, Damon McGee, and Mikail Musa Muhammad, actvists with the Black Autonomy-COPWATCH group in Chattanooga, were arrested on May 19, 2000 for leading a crowd of over 100 Black protesters, irate over the deaths of two Black men killed a few weeks previous by Chattanooga police officers. Because local officials were embarrassed and intimidated over the protests, they had sought to punish Ervin and the other activists with criminal charges. Thus the Chattanooga 3 case was born.
During the trial, when it seemed that all the secret preparations by the judge, prosecutors and cops were failing, they decided to stage a provocation to frighten the jury and sway them to the state's case. A police provocateur, only know publicly as "Omar" was encouraged by the Sheriff's deputies to bring a gun and ammunition into the trial, implying that he was part of a conspiracy with the Defendants on trial to disrupt the trial. Omar was never arrested for bringing the ammunition and gun to court, and it now appears that this incident may be the basis of another prosecution. this one charging the Defendants wtih being engaged in a conspiracy to disrupt the proceedings and smuggle guns into the courtroom.
Based on information and belief, this provocateur only publicly identified as "Omar", is being groomed to go before the Hamilton County Grand Jury, with a story that the C3 defendants had told him to bring a gun and ammunition into the trial to either escape or take over the courtroom. If this story of a new frameup is true, this is extremely serious. If he and local prosecutors do so, we would face an indictment on much more serious charges. This means we would be facing felony charges for conspiracy (5-8 years in prison), and for bringing firearms into a courtroom (7-10 years in prison). We are sure that Omar would be given immunity from prosecution for his fase testimony. This is more than a pipe dream, the Chattanooga-Hamilton County officials have been frustrated for years that they could not frame us up on more serious charges to finally get rid of us. It is very likely that they are working on just such a plot.
This secret police use of undercover operatives to frame activists is how the Black Panther Party and other revolutionary organizations were destroyed in the late 1960's-early 1970's. We cannot stand by while yet more activists are railroaded to long prison sentences by a Sheriff seeking to justify security measures or ensure their convictions on even more serious charges.
COME TO CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE ON JANURY 24, 2000 TO PROTEST THE SENTENCING OF THE C3 DEFENDANTS, AND TO PREVENT ANOTHER LEGAL LYNCHING BY LOCAL OFFICIALS.
For information, contact: International Committee to Support the Chattanooga 3, Banco_midwest@hotmail.com. Also write letters of complaint to Sheriff John Cupp, JohnCupp@cdc.net, and demand that he drop plans of any further criminal charges.
------- Onelist (submissions from subscribers)