------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
9 People Still Missing After Collision at Sea
German Minister To Go to Russia
Sub Victims' Family Head To Hawaii
Japan PM Under Fire for Playing Golf As Trawler Sank
Calls in Japan for U.S. to Raise Trawler Sunk by Sub
Europe's Shifting Role Poses Challenge to U.S.
MoD knew shells were cancer risk
The ministry that hides from truth
Revisiting the Iraq Sanctions
How Will Bush Define Our National Security?
China policy changes emerge
In Show of Support, Bush Is to Visit Military Bases
Bush Puts Focus on Military
Wanted: Windfall In Nuclear Waste
Judging Khrushchev, in History's Eyes
The Next Nuclear Wave
Retired Air Force Colonel Dies at 77
Tank burped, and Hanford feels relieved

MILITARY
Cautious U.S. Hope on Report of Lower Afghan Opium Crop
Iraq: 7 Hurt in Allied Airstrikes
Astronauts Bolt Laboratory to Space Station

OTHER
USA is safe from mad cow
Keep risk in perspective
Fears of Mad Cow Disease Reach Bullfighting Rings

ACTIVISTS
Statehood Greens
Fuki Kushida, Campaigner in Japan for Peace and Women's Rights


-------- NUCLEAR

9 People Still Missing After Collision at Sea

February 11, 2001
New York Times
By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/11/national/11SUBM.html

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 - Navy and Coast Guard ships and planes searched the waters off Hawaii through the night, but as dawn broke today rescuers had not found nine people missing from a Japanese boat that sank after a collision with a United States Navy submarine.

Among the missing were four high school students who were on the fishing vessel to learn commercial fishing, along with two of their teachers and three crew members, a Coast Guard official said. Shortly after the 191-foot trawler sank on Friday afternoon, the Coast Guard rescued 26 survivors, 12 of whom were hospitalized, said Lt. Greg Fondran, a spokesman for the 14th Coast Guard District in Honolulu.

Two Coast Guard cutters patrolled the area all night, with a Navy cruiser and a Navy salvage ship. Helicopters and reconnaissance aircraft joined in the search, Lieutenant Fondran said.

The submarine, the U.S.S. Greeneville, a 362-foot attack submarine, left the scene once rescue operations were in full swing and was on the way to Pearl Harbor, the Navy said.

Lieutenant Fondran, in a telephone interview, said, "Unfortunately, we have not found any of the nine who are missing." He said that searchers had seen debris, life rafts and fishing gear in the water, but "no personal effects, no sign of them."

Even as search and rescue efforts continued, the Coast Guard began to interview the officers, crew members and survivors of the Japanese boat to try to learn what happened. Preliminary reports said that the Greeneville hit the trawler, the Ehime Maru, as the submarine surfaced about 10 miles south of Honolulu.

Lt. Conrad Chun, a spokesman for the Pacific Fleet, said the investigation into the cause of the collision would begin immediately on the submarine's return. Crew members are expected to begin meeting with investigators today, he said.

In addition to the Navy, the accident will be investigated by the Coast Guard and the National Transportation Safety Board.

The collision occurred at about 1:45 p.m. Hawaii time (6:45 p.m. Eastern standard time) on Friday, when the submarine surfaced and struck the trawler, ripping the engine room open. Survivors said that water flooded the vessel and that it sank within minutes, in 18,000 feet of water. Most of the people aboard the trawler were below deck, in the mess hall, when it was struck.

Shortly after the collision, the Coast Guard was notified by the Navy that a submarine had hit a ship, and at the same time an emergency beacon on the Japanese boat sounded a distress signal that the Coast Guard picked up, Lieutenant Fondran said. It took 30 minutes for rescue vessels to arrive at the scene, by which time the boat had sunk, he said. Within 15 minutes of arriving the rescuers had picked up the survivors from life rafts, he said.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spoke today to his Japanese counterpart, Foreign Minister Yohei Kono, to apologize for the accident and to pass on President Bush's condolences, a State Department spokesman said.

The Ehime Maru left Japan on Jan. 10 with 20 crew members, 2 teachers and 13 students from a Japanese fisheries school in the southeastern Japanese prefecture of Ehime. The trawler had been scheduled to return to Japan next month.

The Navy said there was no visible damage to the nuclear-powered submarine, which would normally carry a crew of 133. It has Tomahawk cruise missiles and torpedoes but carries no nuclear weapons.

The Japanese government said officials in Ehime had set up a crisis center for families.

The care of the survivors was being coordinated by the Japanese Consulate in Hawaii.

The survivors were taken to a Coast Guard station at Sand Island in Honolulu Harbor, and those who were not injured were housed in a local hotel.

The Associated Press said that while some of the injured were carried on stretchers, others were able to walk on their own.

---

German Minister To Go to Russia

February 11, 2001
Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Germany-Russia.html

BERLIN (AP) -- When German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer travels to Moscow this week, he may find more in common with the old Cold War foe than has recently been the case with his country's closest ally, the United States.

Germany and Moscow are enjoying good relations thanks to the personal chemistry between Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and President Vladimir Putin -- who speaks fluent German from his time as a KGB agent in East Germany. Schroeder paid a personal visit to Moscow last month with his wife to join Putin's family for Orthodox Christmas.

Although there are disagreements, most notably over Russia's debt payments and Chechnya, Moscow and Berlin are uniformly opposed to U.S. plans for a national missile defense system -- now one of the most contentious issues in international defense policy.

Berlin has also taken Russia's side in cautioning Washington that expanding NATO too quickly will bring domestic trouble for Putin.

During a two-day visit starting Monday, Fischer is to meet with his counterpart Igor Ivanov; Sergei Ivanov, chief of Putin's Security Council; and Gennady Seleznyov, the speaker of the lower house, the State Duma.

Other topics to be discussed include relations between the European Union and Russia, regional security questions, development of democracy in Russia and the situation in Chechnya and the Balkans.

Fischer will also be talking about Iran. Last week in Berlin, he issued a warning to Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi against any attempt to use Russian technology to build nuclear weapons.

Russia has signed a deal to build a nuclear reactor at Iran's Bushehr power plant, drawing strong U.S. objections over fears that the technology could be used to develop nuclear arms. Moscow and Tehran maintain the plant can be used only for civilian purposes.

Germany is Russia's largest creditor, but the issue of Moscow's debt isn't expected to dominate Fischer's agenda in Moscow.

Still, a prominent German industry official said in a newspaper interview Sunday that Russia needs to present a list of possible companies in a proposed debt-for-equity swap to Germany within the next six weeks to keep discussions alive.

``If we don't reach an agreement within the next four to six weeks, then I consider this issue to have failed,'' Klaus Mangold told Welt am Sonntag.

The deal concerns Russia's debt in transferable rubles, left over from Soviet times that Germany took over in 1991 from East Germany.

While Fischer is in Moscow on Monday, German and Russian economic ministers will be leading a meeting in Berlin to discuss the two countries' economic ties.

---

Sub Victims' Family Head To Hawaii

February 11, 2001
Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Submarine-Worried-Town.html

UWAJIMA, Japan (AP) -- Relatives of students and teachers missing after a U.S. nuclear submarine sank their fishing boat off Hawaii headed for the island state on Sunday amid fading hopes that their loved ones could be saved.

Before heading to the local airport, family members and officials gathered at the Uwajima Fisheries High School, where exhausted officials had spent the night waiting for scant information from the search in the waters off Waikiki.

One young woman, her head hung low, covered her face with a handkerchief as she squeezed past reporters onto the bus. Other relatives included elderly couples and teen-age boys.

A total of 32 people, including families of survivors, school administrators and government officials, were to depart later Sunday for the seven-hour flight to Honolulu.

Early Sunday, there were no signs of survivors among the nine still missing after the nuclear-powered USS Greeneville collided with the 499-ton Ehime Maru on Friday.

The collision occurred while the submarine was practicing an emergency surfacing procedure, Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, said Saturday.

Thirty-five Japanese were aboard the Ehime Maru, which sank within minutes of the crash. The 26 survivors, many soaked in diesel fuel, were rescued by two Coast Guard boats, and several were treated at hospitals for minor injuries and exposure to the fuel.

Kazumitsu Joko, the vice principal of Uwajima Fisheries High School, told reporters that the ship's captain believed most of the nine missing people had been trapped at the bottom of the doomed ship or in its cafeteria as it went down.

The captain said at the time of impact with the sub, he had heard a noise ``like iron being shredded,'' probably the ship's bottom being torn open, according to Joko, who had received the information from the Japanese government.

Soon afterward, there were two explosions that the captain said were likely caused by a rush of sea water coming into contact with the searing hot engine of the ship.

People in the town of Uwajima, a quiet fishing village in southwestern Japan, were glued to televisions through the night awaiting news of survivors.

``As a parent, my heart goes out to the parents of the missing,'' said 44-year-old store employee Komami Hirosawa, whose 17-year-old son is close to three of the rescued students. ``The families must be worried sick.''

---

Japan PM Under Fire for Playing Golf As Trawler Sank

February 11, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-japan-p.html

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan's gaffe-prone prime minister, Yoshiro Mori, came under fire Sunday from politicians and press for continuing with a game of golf after hearing a U.S. nuclear submarine had struck and sunk a Japanese trawler packed with students.

``I don't know how the prime minister first heard of it, but I think he should have stopped playing golf immediately and returned to his office,'' Takenori Kanzaki, leader of the New Komeito party and the key partner in Mori's ruling coalition, told a television talkshow.

Tanzaki's was not a lone voice.

Most major newspapers carried front-page particles and editorials attacking Japan's most unpopular prime minister in years for his decision to finish a round of gold Saturday morning after he heard that the Japanese trawler had sunk off Hawaii.

Nine people, including four 17-year-old students from a fisheries school, were still missing Sunday more than 24 hours after the 6,900-tonU.S. nuclear attack submarine USS Greeneville surfaced and struck the 499-tonEhime Maru off Hawaii.

Mori insisted his decision had been correct, saying it would not do to get flustered in moments of crisis.

``It would not get any of us anywhere if I rushed to (the prime minister's official residence) and got all flustered, without receiving reports,'' Mori told reporters Saturday.

``We took the safest course of action.''

Mori, who had been playing golf at a country club near Yohohama received word of the accident at around 10:30 (0130 GMT) a.m. and left for Tokyo shortly before 1 p.m.

``Prime Minister waits four hours'' screamed the headline on the front page of the Asahi Shimbun newspaper.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda said Mori's decision had caused no problems since he was issuing instructions from the golf course by mobile telephone.

Newspapers leapt on Mori's decision, quoting defense experts and political analysts as saying the prime minister took too long to grasp the gravity of the situation.

The timing could hardly be worse. A survey of voters by the daily Mainichi Shimbun last week showed support for Mori, battered by scandals that have felled three cabinet ministers and his reputation for blunders, at a mere 14 percent.

He is not the first Japanese Prime Minister to come under attack for allegedly taking a crisis too lightly.

His predecessor, the late Keizo Obuchi, was criticized for going for a haircut just five minutes after his cabinet set up a task force to deal with the aftermath of a Tokyo subway train collision that killed three people and injured 31 last March.

---

Calls in Japan for U.S. to Raise Trawler Sunk by Sub

February 11, 2001
New York Times
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-japan-t.html?pagewanted=all

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan urged the United States on Sunday to consider raising a trawler struck and sunk by a U.S. nuclear submarine off Hawaii as families of the students and others missing left home to be close to the scene of the tragedy.

Search vessels and helicopters have been scouring the choppy seas despite fading hopes of finding the nine missing Japanese from among the 35 people aboard the trawler, the Ehime Maru, when it sank late Friday.

Those missing are four 17-year-old fisheries students, two of their teachers and three crew members and all may have gone down with the ship.

``The first priority is the rescue of the nine missing people,'' Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori told reporters after meeting a local official who demanded that the United States raise the ill-fated Ehime Maru.

``If they cannot be found on the surface of the sea, we would have to address our worries and see inside the ship,'' the prime minister said. Mori said it might be necessary to raise the Japanese trawler that sank in 1,800 feet of water.

The USS Greeneville, a 360-foot, 6,900-ton attack submarine based at nearby Pearl Harbor, surfaced on Friday afternoon, crashing into the 499-ton trawler carrying 35 people, including the students on their first open-sea voyage.

The ship sank in minutes in waters nine miles south of Diamond Head off Honolulu, Hawaii. Twenty-six people were rescued but fears were mounting on both sides of the Pacific that time may be running out for finding any survivors.

``We want to believe and are praying that the students, teachers and crew members lost at sea will be saved,'' said Vice Principal Kazumitsu Joko of Uwajima Marine and Fisheries High School in southern Ehime Prefecture, where teachers, parents and students have kept vigil for missing classmates and friends.

About 30 family members, school officials and local government officers began the long journey from the southern island of Shikoku to Hawaii for first-hand news of the search.

``There will be no information while we stay at home,'' said Ryosuke Terata, father of Yusuke Terata, one of the four missing 17-year-old students, as he left his home. ``We will go with the whole family as we believe he is still alive.''

However, the ship's captain, Hisao Onishi, was reported as saying most of the missing were in the bottom of the ship, or the mess hall at the time of the collision.

As part of the chorus of U.S. officials who have apologized for the incident, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent word to his Japanese counterpart Sunday but did not say if his country would raise the Ehime Maru, Japanese officials said.

WIMPS, NUTS AND APOLOGIES

The accident comes at a delicate time for relations between the world's two largest economies.

In the space of a few days, the chief of U.S. military forces in Japan's southernmost island of Okinawa has had to apologize to his hosts for calling them ``nuts'' and ``wimps.''

And the administration of new President George W. Bush's first major contact with its top Asian ally Japan contains another set of apologies for the nuclear submarine incident.

As Bush and top officials in the new administration expressed regret to Japan, the Navy, Coast Guard and National Transportation Safety Board launched investigations into the cause of Friday's collision.

The U.S. Pacific Fleet announced that the commander of the submarine USS Greeneville, Cmdr. Scott Waddle, had been reassigned pending results of the investigation.

At a news conference in Hawaii, Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, said: ``While it's not yet clear how this accident occurred, it is both tragic and regrettable. I would like to express my apologies to all of those involved in the incident, their families and the government of Japan.''

At a news conference in Hawaii, the captain of the Ehime Maru expressed anger at the crew of the Greeneville for doing ''little to help.''

Hisao Onishi said through tears that for about an hour after his ship sank, the only rescue efforts offered by the Greeneville came when it lowered a rope ladder.

``We waited for the Coast Guard,'' he said.

Japanese media expressed outrage and bewilderment over the accident and how the world's most advanced military could let an incident like this occur.

``It is a matter of course for a submarine to use sonar and its periscope to check for nearby vessels before surfacing. If the U.S. submarine neglected to do this, it is an incredibly basic mistake,'' said an editorial in the daily Asahi Shimbun.

FOCUS ON SURFACE PROCEDURE

Fargo said the Navy's investigation would focus on the submarine's surfacing procedure. He said both an acoustic and a visual search should be conducted prior to surfacing.

``That's what we would expect and believe happened in this particular case. That certainly will be the subject of the investigation,'' Fargo said.

The admiral stressed that the Greeneville was operating normally and had been engaged in routine operations. Rear Adm. Charles Griffiths Jr., commander of Submarine Group Nine, was designated as investigating officer, Fargo said.

The Greeneville returned to Pearl Harbor on its own power Saturday with a tugboat escort after having taken part in search and rescue efforts.

Navy officials said there was minor damage to the submarine's rudder and that its ``skin'' on the port side of the stern was scraped but there was no danger to safe operation.

U.S. Coast Guard rescue boats, backed by Navy Seahawk helicopters and P-3 aircraft equipped with night-vision gear, quickly pulled 26 survivors from fluorescent orange canvas life rafts, some of them lashed together, the Coast Guard said.

Coast Guard spokesman Lt. Greg Fondran said those who were pulled from the water were covered in diesel fuel, and some of them suffered broken bones and minor injuries.

Twelve of the survivors were taken to hospitals for treatment and the rest were given blue coveralls and taken to hotels, the Coast Guard said.

The spokesman said two Navy aircraft, a chopper, a C-130, and an 87-foot patrol boat continued to search for survivors in a 1,400 square mile area around the crash site that was about the size of Rhode Island.

U.S. Coast Guard spokesman Eric Hedaa added, ``With water temperatures of 77 degrees there's a good chance that if somebody was in the water for that amount of time they would still be alive. Hypothermia probably would not have set in yet.''

-------- depleted uranium

Europe's Shifting Role Poses Challenge to U.S.

February 11, 2001
New York Times
By ROGER COHEN
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/11/world/11EURO.html?pagewanted=all

BERLIN, Feb. 10 - A little phrase from Rudolf Scharping, the German defense minister, recently caused American military commanders to shudder: "As the European Union develops its security and defense policy and becomes an independent actor, we must determine our security policy with Russia, our biggest neighbor."

The specter of Europe - and particularly its central power, Germany - adopting a more independent stance from NATO and paying close heed to Russia is chilling for the United States, and hard to reconcile with the Atlantic alliance that has preserved Europe's stability and advanced American interests for more than a half-century.

The alliance is not about to fall apart: too much is at stake for that, not least the peace of mind of the many Europeans who still believe this continent is inherently unstable unless America is present. But as Mr. Scharping's words suggest, something fundamental has shifted in the transatlantic relationship.

The 15-member European Union, long a mere trade bloc ultimately protected by American power, has begun to develop into a grouping with its own serious military and strategic ambitions. Where exactly such ambitions are directed remains uncertain, but this much seems clear: the scope of Europe's quest for an altered balance of power in its post- cold war ties with Washington is not yet fully appreciated by the Bush administration.

Addressing the allies for the first time last week in Munich, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld did not use the words "European Union" once.

It was this omission - as much as Mr. Rumsfeld's stark warning to the Europeans to avoid "actions that could reduce NATO's effectiveness by confusing duplication or by perturbing the transatlantic link" - that was noted in European capitals.

"It appeared that the European Union was not yet on Mr. Rumsfeld's radar screen," said Wolfgang Ischinger, a senior official in the German Foreign Ministry. "Of course, it was not a factor the last time he was in office. But the fact is the development of the Union's defense identity is an accelerating process that it would be a mistake to oppose."

Already, the European Union has set up a military planning staff, established a so-called political and security committee and is readying a 60,000-member rapid reaction force. At the same time, most of the Union is less than a year away from the fast-forward to a European identity likely to occur when the euro becomes the currency on the streets of Barcelona, Brussels and Berlin. The euro was always a political project; its politics involve forging a united Europe as a counterweight to American dominance.

How the Europeans finesse their challenge to American superpower assumptions has yet to be defined. France, for example, wants Europe's new military arm to be "independent" from NATO, or at least equipped to be so; Britain rejects such ideas as destabilizing Gallic dreams. But Europe has clearly decided to create the embryo of an army because it has determined that this is in its interest, because it believes that this is the only way to convince skeptical electorates of the need to increase defense spending, and because it views the development as an essential complement to economic and political integration.

It wants to be treated as a bloc and as an equal within the alliance, so ending the relationship of a single superpower to a bunch of far smaller allies. For Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, such European integration amounts to a "historical process" and, as such, is unstoppable - even by America.

The parallels are obvious to another development portrayed as unstoppable and inevitable by President Bush: the American construction and deployment of a system of national missile defense of which Europeans remain suspicious.

As these two projects - Europe's rapid reaction force, America's missile shield - confront each other, a profound change in transatlantic relations seems clear. At other times of post-war tensions, like the resistance in Germany, Italy, Britain and elsewhere to the deployment of new medium-range missiles in the early 1980's, the arguments centered on a European reaction to an American- directed policy.

This time, however, both Europe and the United States are pushing ideas they perceive to be in their inviolable interests. Neither is ready to budge. Each will have to accommodate the other. In this sense, the European Union has become an "actor" - unwieldy, underfunded - but still a body that acts as well as reacts.

Across the broad range of European-American differences - from subsidies for the new Airbus "Superjumbo" aircraft to what diplomats now call the "social conflicts" over issues like gun control, the death penalty and the use of genetically modified food - this growing European coherence weighs heavily.

The issues may prove especially intractable because, as Mr. Ischinger noted, "We now have a different thinking about power and structures."

Europeans have just traded in a lot of their national sovereignty for the euro and so view the world very much in multilateral terms. The United States remains fiercely attached to its sovereignty; the new administration wants to bolster national defense as it questions automatic recourse to multilateralism.

As at any time of strategic flux, there seem to be real dangers of misunderstanding. "Increased European capabilities are a political imperative for both sides of the Atlantic," said Gen. Wesley K. Clark, the former NATO commander in Europe who retired recently. "But the evolution of European capabilities should not distance the European Union from NATO. Europe must not become a middle ground between NATO on the one hand and Russia on the other."

A lot of thinking has already gone into ensuring this does not happen. NATO and the European Union are going to meet at ambassadorial level six times a year and at ministerial level at least once a year to ensure that, to use Mr. Rumsfeld's phrase, Europe's new defense plans do not end up "injecting instability" into the alliance. These meetings will involve bizarre overlapping - 11 of NATO's 19 members are also members of the European Union - but reflect a determination to avoid misunderstandings. Still, many American questions remain.

What missions exactly is the new European force to serve? When, if ever, would Europe want to act militarily without the United States? Will scarce resources not be diverted from NATO? Is duplication not inevitable?

American officials also ask whether it would not be better to increase defense spending - a mere 1.4 percent of gross national product in Germany compared to about 3.5 percent in the United States - rather than paying for new institutions. And they wonder why Congress should approve funding for NATO if Europe has its own defense structure.

"The danger is that the Europeans will set up the European Union as a competitor and alternative to NATO," said one American military expert. "Then they say to the Russians, `Don't worry, work with us, we know the United States is too forceful.' At that point, different geography and different interests become impossible to contain within NATO."

The Europeans dismiss such concerns. They point to the fact that the United States - most recently in the Balkans - has repeatedly called on Europe to become more capable of projecting force and acting coherently. They recall the Kosovo war, where the European contribution was compromised by the continent's technological arrears. They say a strong alliance for the 21st century must be a balanced one.

At present, there are only about 50 centralized European military planning staff - compared to more than eight times that at NATO military headquarters. Britain, backed by Germany, argues for planning to remain essentially under NATO's control.

But France wants Europe to have a large and independent military planning staff. Meanwhile, Turkey - an alliance member angered at being excluded from the nascent European forces - has balked at allowing NATO to plan for the Europeans.

In the end, however, it seems clear that Europe needs America - for the practical military reason that only America has the airlift, reconnaissance and intelligence equipment to make a mission feasible, and for the strategic reason that in a Europe where America is no longer a power, German power becomes uncomfortably conspicuous.

And Mr. Bush may find that he needs the Europeans for his national missile defense system - for the practical reason that a deep transatlantic rift would be very costly in trade and other areas, and strategically to preserve alliances.

For now, the Europeans seem ready to adopt a wait-and-see approach to Mr. Bush's idea. Their resistance is real and their concerns serious: what if, for example, China increases its missile force, exports missiles and thus goads India into following suit?

Mr. Bush's plan now seems to be part of a general military reassessment that could involve large unilateral cuts in the American nuclear arsenal. As such, it is certain to be more palatable to the Europeans.

"On missile defense, we have decided on a soft approach combined with pressing questions," said Mr. Ischinger. "But the Americans must understand that no real military threats are perceived by most Germans and there is no way we can sell a larger defense budget unless we push forward the creation of a European force."

Such "understanding" still has to be reached in Washington. "Weaken NATO and we weaken Europe, which weakens all of us," Mr. Rumsfeld said in Munich, at the gathering where Mr. Scharping alarmed Americans with his glimpse of other defense options. The fact is that a stronger, more united, less vulnerable Europe, with no enemy at its door, no longer sees its interests in such straightforward terms.

One senior NATO official likened the adjustments now needed in the alliance as a result of Europe's growing cohesion and ambitions to "brain surgery - important, essential, doable, but if it goes wrong, a disaster."

--------

MoD knew shells were cancer risk

Thursday January 11, 2001
Richard Norton-Taylor

Looks like the Brits just got caught hiding information and not reporting

DU lung retention known and cancer risks connected

Army doctors warned four years ago that exposure to depleted uranium, which is used in US and British anti-tanks shells, increased the risk of developing lung, lymph and brain cancer.

The warnings, in an internal MoD document, are in marked contrast to persistent public assurances - repeated by the armed forces minister, John Spellar, to the Commons on Tuesday - playing down the risk from DU.

Its publicly stated view is that there is a potential but extremely small risk from soluble DU, a toxic chemical that could damage the kidneys. But an unpublished document by MoD medical experts, dated March 1997 and seen by the Guardian, paints a very different picture.

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

In a devastating passage under the heading "Risk assessment relating to Gulf war uranium exposure", it warns: "First and foremost, the risk of occupational exposure by inhalation must be reduced."

It goes on to say: "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 ministry that hides from truth
Gulf war veterans deserve better treatment and we need honesty

Thursday January 11, 2001
George Monbiot

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.

g.monbiot@zetnet.co.uk

-------- iraq

Revisiting the Iraq Sanctions

February 11, 2001
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/11/opinion/11SUN2.html

A decade after he directed the victory of the United States and its allies in the Persian Gulf war, Colin Powell faces the difficult task of revitalizing the international effort to prevent Iraq from rearming. When he makes his first trip to the Middle East as secretary of state later this month, General Powell will essentially need to reinvent the rules for dealing with Iraq by enlisting the aid of regional leaders in tightening the arms embargo on Baghdad while simultaneously relaxing other trade sanctions. He will then have to gain the support of the United Nations Security Council for the revised approach.

This page has strongly supported Washington's efforts over the last 10 years to prevent Saddam Hussein from regaining the military might to threaten his neighbors. When diplomatic pressure failed, we endorsed the use of American air strikes to force Iraqi compliance with United Nations arms control measures. Thwarting Mr. Hussein's ambition to rebuild his military forces must remain the central goal of American policy.

But it has become clear in recent months that the array of sanctions that the Security Council imposed on Iraq in the early 1990's has been rapidly weakening as Arab and Muslim countries grow impatient with the restrictions and two permanent members of the Council, Russia and France, press to ease Baghdad's isolation. Recent weeks have seen a rapid deterioration. Commercial flights to Iraq with uninspected cargo have resumed and Mr. Hussein has obtained billions of dollars in revenue from illicit oil sales that he can use to start rebuilding his capacity to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Because of Iraqi intransigence and the lingering divisions on the Security Council, no arms inspectors have set foot in Iraq since 1998.

The world needs a more cleary defined and enforceable strategy. To be effective, the policy must have the active support of Iraq's neighbors in the region, many of which want to relieve the hardships on the Iraqi people that have accompanied the sanctions. The continuing stalemate between Israel and the Palestinians has added to Arab restiveness.

The sensible response is to concentrate international efforts on controlling the flow of arms and related industrial goods into Iraq. An effective arms embargo requires both tight financial controls on how Baghdad spends its oil revenues and strict measures to prevent the sale or delivery of banned military items to Iraq from abroad.

In theory, such a system is already in place. All of Iraq's legitimate oil income is deposited in an escrow account that is managed by the Security Council, which limits expenditures to civilian purposes. Sea, land and air cargo destined for Iraq is subject to inspection before it enters the country. But Mr. Hussein has maneuvered around the financial restrictions by smuggling oil to market, often with the acquiescence of nearby nations like Syria, Iran, Turkey and Jordan. He may soon start defying the ban on importing military goods because Iraq's borders are porous and few nations make an effort to block the sale or shipment of military goods to Baghdad.

To gain the cooperation of other states in enforcing the arms embargo and combatting Iraq's oil smuggling, Washington should offer a more flexible approach toward non-weapons imports. Currently, American diplomats are holding up billions of dollars of imports needed for civilian transportation, electric power generation, the oil industry and even medical treatment because they could potentially be put to military as well as civilian uses.

Washington should agree to re-examine these items on a case-by-case basis. Imports likely to be used in the production of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons must remain banned, but controls on other items could be relaxed over time. This would also likely win Russian and French support.

A revitalized embargo will not resolve the long impasse over the return of U.N. inspectors to Iraq. For the moment, at least, the use of air strikes to force Mr. Hussein to readmit inspectors seems untenable because of international opposition. But Mr. Hussein must understand that the suspension or even eventual lifting of most remaining sanctions requires unfettered access by the inspectors to all suspected weapons sites.

The Bush administration's initial action on Iraq was an ill-advised decision to assist opposition groups inside Iraq, even though they have little chance of undermining Mr. Hussein. But the administration has made clear it recognizes the weaknesses of the current sanctions system and hopes to rally support for limiting Iraq's access to weapons and military equipment. Using the formidable powers of a new presidency and his own high standing in the Middle East, General Powell must try to reconstruct a united and effective front against Mr. Hussein.

-------- missile defense

How Will Bush Define Our National Security?

Sunday, February 11, 2001
San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/11/ED162842.DTL

EVERY YEAR, the federal government spends more than $1,000 for every man, woman and child to finance the military defense of our nation. Aren't you just a bit curious to know which enemies have been prevented from nuking the nation's capital or invading the country's coasts?

The truth is, even our government isn't sure.

For 40 years, we lived with certainty. We were the good guys who protected the rest of the world from communists who plotted from deep inside the Evil Empire.

But the Cold War ended more than a decade ago, and nobody -- not Iraq, Iran,

Libya, China or North Korea -- has been able to fill the enemy gap created by the demise of the former Soviet Union.

The Clinton administration, which never really seemed to develop a coherent foreign policy, lurched from one military emergency to another. It also left the Bush administration with a U.S. commitment to a potentially disastrous war in Colombia, as well as many obligations to humanitarian and peacekeeping duties.

Now George W. Bush has a fresh opportunity to rethink our national security policy -- as do we all. What are the real risks and threats that endanger the American people? As the only surviving superpower, endowed with enormous wealth and military strength, what rights and responsibilities should our country assume on the global stage?

The good news is that Bush has wisely halted any increase in military expenditures until his security advisers review the nation's military needs.

The bad news, however, is that this assessment of military priorities is very likely part of a larger strategic plan to fund a national missile defense shield, and to regain a first-strike capability by developing an offensive space-based weaponry.

Even limited development of a missile defense would violate this country's 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia.

A missile shield -- whether or not it works -- also threatens to fuel a new arms race. The logic is inexorable. Create a shield and sooner or later another country will develop a missile that can pass through it undetected. Russian President Vladimir V. Putin has already warned that the development of a missile shield would renew an arms race with the United States.

The fact is, President Bush can diminish the nuclear threat without launching a new and expensive arms race. His decision to reduce our nuclear arsenal is a good first step. The United States still retains a powerful nuclear deterrent. He can also take all U.S. nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. In addition, he should urge the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was designed to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Many of the risks and threats we face, moreover, cannot be contained by spending $60 billion on the development of a missile defense.

We cannot prevent use of chemical or biological weapons, thwart the terrorist use of explosives, or foil cyber-hackers with a national missile defense shield.

Bigger and better weapons won't stop global warming, the destruction of rain forests, or the extinction of thousands of species. More sophisticated technology won't diminish global poverty and regional warfare, which create millions of refugees desperate to emigrate to the United States.

In the new global society, "local problems" are inextricably linked to this nation's security. The growth of prosperity and democracy elsewhere can translate into less military spending for peacekeeping missions. Disease can spread across national boundaries as quickly as electronic currency. "Defense spending" can no longer be measured by military expenditures.

The choices made by the new president are likely to affect the world community for decades to come. In stark terms, these are his choices: He can either lead us into a renewed and expensive arms race or he can use the nation's great resources to counter the many different kinds of real threats facing the United States.

But the decision is not his alone. The American people must also make their views known. It's not only your right, it's your responsibility.

---

China policy changes emerge

02/11/2001
USA Today
By Bill Nichols
http://usatoday.com/news/washdc/2001-02-11-china.htm

WASHINGTON - When he was a presidential candidate, President Bush vowed to treat China as a "competitor rather than a strategic partner."

And, in his administration's first weeks, Bush and his foreign policy advisers are signaling that they mean to make good on that campaign pledge by taking a tougher line toward Beijing than the Clinton administration did.

Secretary of State Colin Powell recently criticized religious oppression in China. White House officials are discussing whether to support new arms sales to Taiwan, a move sure to anger China.

On top of that, Bush is calling for development of a much larger national missile defense system than the one President Clinton had backed. China and Russia oppose the project, which critics say could spark an arms race among China, India and Pakistan.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that China's opposition to a national missile defense system "is not a concern" and hinted that a U.S. missile shield could help defend Taiwan from invasion.

"If some country decided it wanted to be aggressive to its neighbors and acquire additional territory by force, then having a missile defense system is not a bad idea," Rumsfeld said.

Officials say the Bush administration will adhere to the longstanding "one China" policy that recognizes Beijing's claim that Taiwan is part of China but also provides the island military aid for self-defense.

China and Taiwan split amid civil war in 1949. China considers the island a renegade province and has threatened to use force to reunify.

But China policy will be "different" under the Bush administration, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher acknowledges.

Clinton pursued a policy of "constructive engagement" with China, a policy that emphasized increased trade and economic contact as a way to lure China's communist regime toward democracy.

Bush also supports strengthened U.S.-China economic ties and plans to follow through on last year's vote in Congress to normalize trade relations with Beijing permanently, instead of on a year-to-year basis.

But the Bush administration says it won't shy away, as it claims Clinton did, from confronting China on security and human rights issues.

Early signs from the Bush team have caused some anxiety among business leaders, who have seen total U.S.-China trade grow from $20 billion in 1990 to $95 billion in 1999.

"Among some people, there is trepidation than any acrimony on those issues will flop over into other things, such as opening China's markets up," says John Foarde of the U.S.-China Business Council. "But there is a consensus that it's too early to tell."

Among the changes:

Taiwan. Congressional advocates of more strengthened U.S. arms sales to Taiwan are delaying plans to pass legislation that would strengthen U.S.-Taiwanese security relations because they are confident Bush will take the lead.

Bush will make a final decision on a Taiwan arms package in April, one of the most important foreign policy decisions he will have to make this year.

Last year, the House of Representatives passed the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act by a 341-70 margin. The bill would have mandated the sale of more advanced weaponry to Taipei. Clinton threatened to veto the bill on grounds that it would only increase tensions between China and Taiwan. The bill died in the Senate.

Taiwan supporters in Congress are hopeful that Bush will sell Taiwan advanced weaponry without Congress forcing his hand.

Topping Taiwan's wish list: Four Aegis guided-missile warships, which the Clinton administration decided last year not to sell Taipei.

"The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act will be pushed less rigorously now than it was the past couple of years," says Ted Galen Carpenter, a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute. "Republicans in Congress will trust the Bush administration much more than they did the Clinton administration."

In apparent anticipation of possible changes in U.S. arms policy toward Taiwan, Beijing is sending its top Taiwan policy official to Washington later this month. Vice Premier Qian Qichen, China's top foreign policy official, is set to come to Washington for meetings in March.

Human rights. Chinese officials here and in Beijing bristled late last month at Boucher's condemnation of China's continuing crackdown on Falun Gong, a Buddhist-style spiritual movement that Beijing banned in 1999.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzao called the comments "totally unacceptable" and demanded that Washington "stop interfering in China's internal affairs."

Boucher's comments came after Powell had what the State Department called a "frank" meeting with outgoing Chinese ambassador Li Zhaoxing. Chinese officials, however, described that meeting as cordial and friendly.

A key test for the new administration's human-rights policy toward China will come in March when the annual meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Commission convenes in Geneva.

Despite the administration's tough talk, there are voices within who oppose having the United States propose its annual resolution at the commission condemning China's human-rights policies.

The rationale: Beijing's desire to host the 2008 Olympics could lead to Chinese human-rights reforms if Washington doesn't antagonize the Chinese leadership.

Powell met with the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, late last week and promised a tougher line on China and human rights, State Department officials say. But Powell made no mention of a Geneva resolution, according to human rights activists briefed by Robinson's staff.

In fact, some foreign policy analysts express skepticism about whether the new administration's positions on Taiwan and human rights are real changes or just symbolic steps to please conservative China hawks.

Indeed, both Washington and Beijing might want to minimize differences to smooth the way for an expected Bush visit to China this fall, when he will attend the annual Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Shanghai.

Any protests of new administration policies "will likely be pro forma," says Stephen Yates, a China specialist at the Heritage Foundation. "Beijing will understand that the president of the United States and the president of China will be sharing a stage in Shanghai in October and both countries need to do what they can to make sure of a solid state visit."

---

In Show of Support, Bush Is to Visit Military Bases

February 11, 2001
New York Times
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/11/politics/11RADI.html

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 - Calling national security his greatest responsibility, President Bush announced today that he would begin a tour of military bases in an effort to display concern for troop morale and the effectiveness of combat weapons.

Mr. Bush said that in the coming week he would visit soldiers at Fort Stewart, Ga., meet with military reservists in West Virginia and tour the headquarters of the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va.

His aim, he said in his weekly radio address today, is "to signal the priority I place on our military."

"Our nation's ideals inspire the world, but our nation's ships and planes and armies must defend these ideals and sustain our allies and friends," the president said.

Mr. Bush earlier directed the Pentagon to review how the nuclear arsenal might be cut as part of a strategy to win allied approval for a United States national defense against ballistic missiles.

He also affirmed that he would not ask Congress for an immediate increase in the current $297 billion Pentagon budget, although he may seek additional money in the spring or summer.

In his radio talk, Mr. Bush said stealth and speed would matter more in future military engagements than the size of the force the nation employs. "We must make sure that our country, itself, is protected from attack from ballistic missiles and high- tech terrorists," he said.

Mr. Bush said he would use his visit to Fort Stewart on Monday to "announce meaningful increases in funding to improve the lives of our men and women in uniform." In Norfolk on Tuesday, he plans to take a look at "the next generation of military weapons." On Wednesday he will turn his attention to military reservists, meeting with members of reserve and National Guard units in Charleston, W.Va.

Mr. Bush will meet with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on Thursday before going to Mexico for talks with President Vicente Fox.

---

Bush Puts Focus on Military

February 11, 2001
Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Improving quality of life in the military is the Bush administration's first order of business as it conducts its top-to-bottom armed services review, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday.

``I think the focus has to be on quality of life for the people,'' Rumsfeld said on ``Fox News Sunday.'' ``Without the men and women that we're able to attract and retain to man the forces, then we really don't have a national defense, so that has to be the first focus.''

The comments opened a week that Bush has devoted to national security, and came on the eve of his visit to an Army base in Georgia to bolster what he has warned is sagging military morale. During the campaign, Bush said equipment shortages, poor housing and pay and unfocused, ``overextended'' missions were eroding morale.

At Bush's direction, Rumsfeld has undertaken a ``force structure review'' of the Pentagon, and the administration will rely on that examination as it sets defense spending priorities. The defense secretary said on ABC's ``This Week'' that he remains convinced a defense budget increase is necessary.

Rumsfeld also defended Bush's plan to develop a missile defense system, calling it a ``reasonable'' step to protect against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

``It threatens no one, and it should be of concern to no one, including the Russians or the Chinese, unless someone has an intention of doing damage to other people,'' he said on Fox.

``The goal isn't to win a war, the goal is to be so capable of winning a war that you don't have to fight it, that you dissuade and deter people from engaging in mischief that they otherwise might do,'' he said.

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said he feared such a system would prompt China, India and Pakistan to build up their own nuclear arsenals. If they did, ``I'm not sure it's a safer world to be in at the end of the day,'' he said.

He does not flatly oppose such a nuclear ``umbrella,'' but Biden said he was concerned that building one could alienate U.S. allies and Russia by violating the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.

While he studies the missile defense issue, Bush is moving swiftly to deliver on his campaign pledge to pay members of the military more.

Bush, who spent the weekend at Camp David, plans to tell the armed forces this week that he will seek $1.4 billion to improve pay and living standards, and an additional $1 billion as an incentive to retain highly skilled service members.

After three weeks of sticking close to home and focusing on domestic issues, the president will review troops up and down the East Coast, meet with diplomats and make his first foreign trip since taking office, flying to Mexico to meet with President Vicente Fox.

Following Monday's trip to Hunter Army Air Field and Fort Stewart in Georgia, he and Rumsfeld head Tuesday to the U.S. Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., a training hub.

Bush will participate in an electronic battle exercise -- part of an appearance emphasizing the need to modernize the military.

Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was expected to accompany the president and Rumsfeld to Norfolk, home port of the USS Cole, the target of last year's terrorist bombing in Yemen that killed 17 U.S. sailors.

On Wednesday, Bush travels to Yeager Field in Charleston, W.Va., an Air National Guard Base. Bush, who served in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, plans to salute those who serve in the military reserves.

The three visits to military installations will be Bush's debut appearances with U.S. troops since he became commander in chief, and they will offer a glimpse of his chemistry with the military.

On Thursday, Bush heads to the State Department, turning his attention to the diplomatic corps and underscoring the importance of American alliances with other nations.

Bush caps the week with his first international trip, the meeting at Fox's ranch in central Mexico.

It is comfortable territory for Bush, who is seeking to establish his foreign-policy credentials. He and Fox worked together as border governors before becoming presidents.

The agenda is likely to include immigration, particularly a U.S. program for documented temporary workers; and Mexico's potential role as an electricity source for the power-strapped U.S. West.

Each of Bush's trips this week allow him to sleep at home -- at the White House, Monday through Thursday, and his Texas ranch on Friday night.

After spending most of the weekend at the ranch, Bush will deliver a speech at the opening of a memorial center honoring the victims of the 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people and injured 500.

-------- russia

Wanted: Windfall In Nuclear Waste

Sunday, February 11, 2001
Washington Post
By Susan B. Glasser
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51407-2001Feb9?language=printer

MUSLYUMOVO, Russia -- Nikolai Gidenko is one of the last of the "liquidators." He earned the title as a Red Army draftee in the 1950s, building a dam on the Techa River, sometimes immersed up to his knees in water.

What Gidenko didn't know then was that the Techa River was a nuclear waste dump, a river of radioactivity carrying contamination from the top-secret nuclear facility down the road. Today, Gidenko receives 200 rubles a month -- less than $8 -- as compensation for the radiation to which he was exposed. In his dying village of 4,500 people, there are six cemeteries, five of them already full.

Which makes it all the more surprising when Gidenko answers with an unhesitating yes when asked if he favors the latest plan of Russia's cash-poor leaders: creating a haven for the world's nuclear leftovers. In exchange for what the government estimates could be a $21 billion windfall, the Russians intend to open their doors to more than 20,000 tons of spent fuel from foreign nuclear reactors for storage and possible reprocessing. Some of it is likely to end up in Gidenko's back yard.

Nationwide, the proposal has spurred the biggest grass-roots opposition movement in Russia's 10 years of democracy. But here in this region of the Ural Mountains almost 1,000 miles east of Moscow that environmentalists call "the most polluted place on Earth," with more radioactive waste than 20 Chernobyls, local leaders are lobbying heavily to make sure they receive their share of the radioactive paycheck.

"I am in favor of importing the nuclear waste," Gidenko said last week in his wooden cottage as the temperature outside hit 20 degrees below zero. "They will reprocess it into fuel, and it will be cheaper for the population. They claim that electricity will be free."

As Russia ventures into nuclear capitalism, Gidenko is not the only one dreaming of the benefits that foreign waste will bring. With the apparent support of President Vladimir Putin, the lower house of parliament, the State Duma, gave preliminary approval to the nuclear imports in December. Despite public opinion polls that show more than 90 percent of Russians oppose the plan, more than 90 percent of the lawmakers voted for it.

"They have dollar signs in their eyes," said activist Natalya Mironova, who belongs to an environmental movement that gathered an unprecedented 2 1/2 million signatures for a national referendum to block the foreign waste, only to see the Central Election Commission invalidate just enough signatures to throw it off the ballot.

To opponents of the plan, the fight is a morality tale about a country whose leaders are so cynical they would mortgage their land's health for some ready cash. It is also a political puzzle of sorts: In the increasingly authoritarian politics of the Putin era, no one is sure whether, or how, public pressure can influence the small group of policymakers that will decide the matter.

At the same time, experts on both sides of the debate agree that Russia's stated reason for getting into the nuclear-waste business is legitimate: Nearly 60 years into the Atomic Age, Russia has found itself with a huge stockpile of nuclear waste from its own reactors and insufficient funds to handle it. Even without importing waste, some experts say, Russia's current storage facility near Krasnoyarsk could be full in a few years.

On the scale of environmental outrages in this already polluted country, several nuclear specialists argued, adding foreign spent fuel to that stockpile might not be as bad as the alternative: a nuclear waste storage crisis and no resources to deal with it.

"Our problem is we have no money," said Nikolai Ponomarev-Stepnoi, deputy director of the Kurchatov Institute, the leading Russian state nuclear research facility on the outskirts of Moscow where still more nuclear waste awaits a permanent home.

A Profitable Enterprise

Taking in spent fuel from abroad is the only commercially sensible way to proceed, he said. "There is a market, and those countries that will be the first to step into this market will be the ones to get the most profit. Considering that these services fetch high prices, if we react quickly we can earn such money as will help us deal with our spent fuel, as well as accepting somebody else's spent fuel."

There are, however, numerous logistical -- and diplomatic -- problems with Russia's entry into this business. Most significant is whether Russia intends to recycle the fuel for use in nuclear power stations or simply store it.

The United States is adamantly opposed to reprocessing spent fuel because the process extracts plutonium that could be used in nuclear weapons. As much as 70 percent of the world's spent nuclear fuel originated in U.S.-designed reactors, so even though it sits at nuclear power plants from Asia to Western Europe, the contracts give the United States final say on where it ends up. If Washington doesn't approve, Russia's $21 billion dream will go unrealized.

In Russia, however, the Atomic Energy Ministry and its backers have talked almost exclusively about reprocessing the spent fuel, not about storing it.

"The Russians seem completely blind to this issue," said a former Clinton administration official who handled the talks. Even so, the official said, U.S. policymakers have been sharply divided, with the Energy Department looking on Russia's import scheme favorably and the State Department insisting that it is "crazy to take more nuclear matter into a country still unable to deal with nuclear waste it already has."

Added the official: "The storage crisis is real. The only question is whether Russia should be the site."

The United States stores spent fuel on-site at nuclear reactors, many of which are expected to run out of storage space within 10 years. Congress is considering a proposal to establish a permanent nuclear waste repository in the Nevada desert.

In Moscow, critics say the Atomic Energy Ministry's plan is to use the foreign funds not for storage, or even to clean up existing environmental disaster zones like the one in Muslyumovo, but to finance nuclear empire-building. Already, the ministry has announced plans to finish 10 new nuclear reactors over the next decade -- without specifying where the funds will come from.

"The atomic ministry is acquiring the power it had in Soviet days, when it was an empire inside the empire, untouchable by anyone," said Alexei Yablokov, a founder of Russia's modern-day environmental movement. "But in reality, the ministry lacks money to finance its grand plans. To get the money, they will have to store this nuclear waste. Of course, it's very difficult for them to explain to people that we are taking for storage everybody's waste. So they pretend they will be reprocessing it and gaining valuable resources."

The government's nuclear safety commission has publicly feuded with the ministry in hopes of blocking the foreign-waste proposal. "They use the seemingly noble explanation that Russia is unable to resolve our situation with nuclear wastes without receiving this money. We don't mind this in principle. But the true object is to use these funds from the import of spent fuel from abroad to continue developing nuclear energy," said Andrei Kislov, head of the commission's department of nuclear fuel cycle enterprises.

Optimistic Forecasts

Such policy nuances are lost here in the Urals, where nuclear pork-barrel politics has taken hold in anticipation that Mayak, the secret nuclear facility up the river from the tainted village of Muslyumovo, will be the recipient of the foreign spent fuel.

Indeed, a paycheck that may never come has already been spent hundreds of times over in the course of this public relations campaign. In the local capital of Chelyabinsk, a government-run newspaper proclaimed that "billions of dollars or the region" await only State Duma approval. The article even divvied up the area's supposed winnings: $3.8 billion for "ecological rehabilitation projects," $2.6 billion for modernizing the Mayak complex and $3.6 billion for "the region's needs."

By this accounting, the government would spend $10 billion of the $21 billion windfall here -- a highly unrealistic scenario.

But that doesn't stop Chelyabinsk Deputy Gov. Gennady Podtyosov from reeling off a list of still more specific benefits for his region. In an interview, he offered a dizzying array of ways to spend the foreign proceeds: rehabilitating the land, building housing for evacuees from the Techa River area, building hospitals and schools, paving roads and laying gas pipes.

Wages Worth the Risk

Two hours north of Chelyabinsk, in the closed city of Ozersk, the same argument is being made to the 10,000-plus workers at the Mayak nuclear plant. Mayak produced the plutonium for the first Soviet nuclear bomb and is still Russia's most important nuclear facility. It houses the country's only factory for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel -- though it is equipped to work only with fuel from Soviet-built reactors. Accepting spent fuel from other countries will require a major upgrade that Mayak cannot afford.

"They say, 'It is necessary to do this. Then everyone will live here like in a fairy tale,' " said Nadezhda Kutepova, a sociologist in Ozersk. Her father came here to clean up a 1957 explosion that was the second-largest nuclear accident in history; he died 20 years later of colon cancer.

Inside the city of more than 80,000 residents, she said, nostalgia flourishes for Soviet times, when the dangers of working at the nuclear plant were accompanied by higher wages, unrationed food and such luxuries as candy. In the poor neighboring villages, they had a name for the Mayak workers: chocoladniki.

"In Ozersk, people think those golden times will return," she said. "No one is thinking about the ecological damage; no one is thinking about nuclear weapons. We are only interested in our wages."

In a rare interview, Mayak General Director Vitaly Sadovnikov portrayed the proposal as a matter of economic survival for his underemployed plant. "Mayak is definitely interested in such an activity, as any enterprise is interested in work," he said.

Mayak's nuclear catastrophes -- the 1949-56 dumping in the Techa River, the 1957 explosion and a 1967 cloud of radioactive dust from a nuclear waste-filled lake -- have exposed more than 450,000 people to dangerously high levels of radiation, according to scientists who have studied them. The environmental disasters were a state secret until the waning days of communism, but today Sadovnikov insists that safety is no longer an issue at his plant.

Instead, he spoke only of "certain errors" and "certain consequences of the previous work of Mayak." Critics of the proposal to import spent nuclear fuel, he said, are guilty of "radiophobia."

But there are indications of such radiophobia even among Mayak's relatively privileged workers. In a survey Kutepova conducted of 700 Ozersk residents last fall, 64 percent said they were against the proposal. "But they will not speak up," she said. "There is a code of silence. Yes, my father died. Yes, my relatives are ill. But I'll be paid my wages and I'll be silent."

Ramses Faizullin decided not to be silent. The 16-year-old lives in one of the villages near Mayak that was relocated -- all 750 people -- from the banks of the Techa River years before he was born. Even so, Faizullin was born with radiation disease; his head is abnormally large and he coughs incessantly. Three times last year he was so sick he had to be hospitalized. His mother said she didn't even know the word "radiation" until after he was born.

In December, Faizullin wrote a letter to Putin and the State Duma pleading with them to block the import of spent fuel. "I do not want to have children like myself," he wrote. "We have suffered our fill from this radiation as it is; every week, they bury somebody in our village."

---

Judging Khrushchev, in History's Eyes

February 11, 2001
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/11/opinion/L11KHR.html

To the Editor:

In "The Thwarted Promise of the 13 Days" (Op-Ed, Feb. 4), Sergei Khrushchev laments the taunting that his father, the Soviet leader, received from American hawks, "accusing him of weakness, of being the first to `blink'" in the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

My father, Senator John O. Pastore, who died last July, was not really a hawk. Yet in his speech at the 1964 Democratic National Convention, he said President John F. Kennedy forced "Nikita Khrushchev to pick up his marbles and go home." Such ridicule, which was general at the time, may have played a role in Khrushchev's being "removed from power" two months later.

From one son to another, I want to say that Kennedy was not the only leader who helped save us from nuclear disaster. But we still need to take nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.

JOHN O. PASTORE, M.D. Winchester, Mass., Feb. 4, 2001 The writer is secretary of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

To the Editor:

Sergei Khrushchev says his father's installation of missiles in Cuba "was to serve as a signal to prevent an American attack of Cuba," but Americans "misunderstood" it as a provocation (Op-Ed, Feb. 4).

In fact, Nikita Khrushchev led a party whose purpose was worldwide Communist revolution, including the violent overthrow of the United States government. It was a dictatorship that enslaved its people and slaughtered millions of innocents.

A successful American attack on Cuba would have been a morally proper invasion that unshackled the Cubans from another brutal dictatorship. The American blockade was meant to protect a free country's security against a bloody aggressor.

JOSEPH KELLARD Oceanside, N.Y., Feb. 5, 2001

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

The Next Nuclear Wave
Energy crunch adds momentum to push for pebble-bed modular reactor

Sunday, February 11, 2001
San Francisco Chronicle
Boston Globe
Ross Kerber,
URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/11/BU173246.DTL

Sitting atop a filing cabinet at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, they look no more exciting than a pair of graphite-colored eight balls. But if experiments go well, the two spheres could lead to a new generation of nuclear power plants across the country.

The balls represent a form of uranium fuel for a proposed nuclear plant design, known as a pebble-bed modular reactor, that is gaining currency in nuclear industry circles. At a time when California is suffering from rolling blackouts, the demand for new generating sources is reviving interest in the pebble-fuel concept, which dates to the 1950s.

Such a reactor was fired up in December at China's Tsinghua University. At MIT, a team including nuclear engineering Professor Andrew Kadak has received research grants of more than $1 million and hopes to build a demonstration reactor in Idaho. The group also plans to cooperate with the Chinese researchers.

Chicago's Exelon Corp. has invested $7.5 million in a pebble-fueled reactor project in South Africa, in the hope that the design will prove commercially viable.

New reactors in North America would help rehabilitate an industry staggered by safety problems in the mid-1990s, including some at the nuclear-engineering company where Kadak was once chief executive. Now, he and other advocates hope pebble-fuel designs will prove suitable for scores of existing nuclear sites, including several in New England.

They also hope the concept will prove simpler, safer and cheaper to operate than today's aging fleet of commercial reactors. For one thing, they say, the fuel spheres would be meltdown-proof.

"We wanted to get rid of the big bogeyman of the technology," Kadak said of the design, which he refers to as "the politically correct reactor."

"If it can be made to work reliably, it could blow the pants off any competing electric source," said Exelon Vice President Ward Sproat.

The fuel spheres that form the basis of the design are manufactured from uranium particles. Each sphere might power a 100-watt light bulb for a dozen years.

That output might not seem like much, but a reactor filled with 400,000 such pebbles could produce the same energy as a typical gas-fired power plant, potentially for similar costs.

Because many questions remain, nobody thinks such a plant could open in the United States for at least five years. The most obvious concern is that the pebbles would become hard-to-dispose-of radioactive waste. Some earlier- generation plants like Maine Yankee have vowed never to host nuclear power sources again.

Other nuclear-power utilities like Southern Co. are noncommittal toward pebble-bed designs, or say they would prefer to build larger nuclear plants with designs the government has already approved. Southern Vice President Louis Long said, "We're not out there to prove new concepts. We're out with proven products to put on the ground to generate electricity."

INDUSTRY TURNAROUND

Just the fact that utilities publicly contemplate building any new nuclear plants demonstrates what a turnaround the industry has undergone since just a few years ago. Then, in addition to safety issues, new natural-gas supplies and deregulation of the generating industry led to a boom in gas-plant construction.

Rising fossil-fuel prices have changed the economic picture significantly since then, however. Reactors like Vermont Yankee, which once seemed like white elephants, are now the subjects of bidding wars as generating companies look to secure long-term power sources.

Last week, representatives from Exelon met with officials at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to discuss the process of licensing a pebble-fuel design.

The meeting coincides with a renewed lobbying initiative by a utility trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, which hopes to speed the development of new reactors.

Ron Simard, a senior director at the institute, cited the changed economics and said the problems with power deregulation in California have been exacerbated by the lack of new generating capacity there. Simard's group has been reluctant to discuss its lobbying plans in the past, but members hope public opinion and the Bush administration might prove more receptive.

"It's time to make this a little more visible," Simard said about the possibility of new plants.

Entergy Corp. executive Jerry Yelverton made a similar point in an October interview with the National Journal: "If the U.S. sees a hot summer next year, like the South did (in 2000), and electric prices go real high, nuclear could be a much more acceptable option."

HELIUM-COOLED

Most American nuclear plants today use 12-foot-long rods of radioactive fuel to heat up water, which is then used to transfer energy to electric turbines. In contrast, a pebble-fuel reactor would contain hundreds of thousands of fuel spheres cooled by flowing helium.

Each fuel sphere would be made up of about 15,000 uranium particles, each about half a millimeter thick and coated with silicon carbide.

The spheres could be removed from the reactor, a few at a time, to be inspected and retired as their energy output is depleted over several years. Designers say the feature would eliminate the costly refueling shutdowns big reactors now require every 18 months or so.

The concept of fuel pebbles dates to the 1950s and drew much attention in Europe. In Germany, a pebble-based reactor built for research ran 22 years, and a commercial version ran for four years before the government stopped funding it around 1987. The halt was due partly to technical problems and partly to anti-nuclear sentiment after the Chernobyl accident in Ukraine.

Still, the results of the German project were encouraging enough to come to the attention of energy planners in South Africa, who wanted to reduce the country's dependence on coal-burning plants. Today, a utility there, Eskom Enterprises, is weighing whether to build a pebble-fueled reactor in a suburb of Cape Town. Construction could begin as soon as 2002.

Along with Exelon, other investors in the Eskom project include British Nuclear Fuel and the Industrial Development Corp. of South Africa.

Meanwhile a 10-megawatt Chinese reactor, at Tsinghua University near Beijing, began operating Dec. 1. Last March, MIT obtained Energy Department permission to work with researchers at Tsinghua. But Kadak, who has visited the site, said substantial cooperation can't begin until China agrees to restrict the export of nuclear technology.

INDUSTRY'S SAFETY PROBLEMS

Few environmental groups endorse nuclear power because of waste issues and the industry's recurring safety problems. For instance, in 1999, Connecticut's Northeast Utilities pleaded guilty to 25 felonies and paid $10 million in penalties for lying to regulators and dumping chemicals near its Millstone plants.

On the other hand, nuclear generation doesn't create the emissions believed to cause global warming. At MIT, Kadak became interested in reviving the pebble-fuel design about three years ago when he helped lead a seminar on how nuclear power might address environmental and economic concerns.

In 1998, Kadak's group began receiving grants totaling more than $1 million from the Energy Department's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory to study fuel-performance and safety issues. The universities of Tennessee and Cincinnati are also involved.

The project represents a career move for Kadak, who from 1989 to 1997 was chief executive of the Yankee Atomic Electric Co., a consortium of utilities that operated the now-retired Yankee Rowe power plant in Rowe, Mass.

Yankee Atomic also provided services to other reactors, including Maine Yankee. In 1998, regulators cited the plant for using faulty engineering calculations performed by Yankee Atomic, problems that contributed to the plant's closure. Yankee Atomic's current owner, Duke Engineering & Services, says regulators never cited the company for wrongdoing.

Now, while he cautions that plenty of technical difficulties remain with the pebble-fuel design, Kadak is enthusiastic that a new plant could become financially viable. For instance, he says several reactors could be built on a single site at costs low enough that they could be financed by venture capitalists rather than public bonds.

He also cites Eskom's estimates its plant could generate power at around 1. 7 cents per kilowatt hour, versus 3 cents or more for the same amount of gas- fired generation in the United States.

Kadak's current research involves the reactor's safety. He says a pebble- based fuel core is "virtually impossible to melt" because, even if the helium coolant escaped from the reactor vessel, German experiments suggest the fuel pebbles wouldn't heat beyond 1,650 degrees Celsius or so, below the 2,000- degree level at which the spheres would begin to deteriorate.

GOODBYE SAFETY ZONES?

This finding leads to some conclusions that could become controversial. For instance, Kadak suggests new pebble reactors could be built without the expensive emergency-cooling systems and safety zones that now surround nuclear plants.

South Africa's Eskom makes a similar point on its Web site: "The inherently safe design of a PBMR (pebble-bed modular reactor) renders the need for safety grade backup systems and off-site emergency plans obsolete and is fundamental to the cost reduction achieved over other nuclear designs."

Dave Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer for the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, said the company has a point. In theory, pebble-based designs wouldn't need complicated machinery to cool fuel during an emergency because the fuel would be cooled by contact with the atmosphere.

In practice, safety would depend on the quality of the fuel's manufacture, Lochbaum said. He also voiced concern that if the graphite in the pebbles caught fire, it couldn't be extinguished by denying oxygen to the blaze because air would still be needed as a coolant.

The Next Nuclear Power PlantUnlike current nuclear reactors, the safety features of the pebble-bed reactor proposed by South Africa's Eskom Enterprises do not rely on any pumps, machines or human intervention. In all nuclear reactors, a chain reaction of splitting atoms must be controlled by graphite or some other neutral substance.TYPICAL NUCLEAR REACTOR1 Graphite control rods are dipped into the water to lower the temperature of the core. They absorb radioactivity and slow the nuclear chain reaction.2 A series of 12-foot nuclear fuel rods heat up in a chain reaction that can only be slowed by the control rods.3 Water is pumped into the reactor. When it comes in direct contact with the fuel it becomes toxic. The hot water powers a turbine.PEBBLE-BED MODULAR REACTOR1 Fuel pebbles heat the helium. Each pebble is made of coated uranium particles.2 Inside the particles, the nuclear chain reaction occurs. The coating and graphite do the job of control rods, but with enough precision that they don't need to be added and removed. About 15,000 tiny coated uranium particles are mixed with graphite powder to make one fuel pebble the size of a billiard ball.3 Instead of water helium is heated. It does not cause corrosion in the reactor like water does and this inert gas cannot become radioactive or mix with any chemicals. If it leaked out, it would be harmless.4 The helium leaves the reactor at about 900C and the hot gas drives a series of turbines, including a power generator.

-------

Retired Air Force Colonel Dies at 77

Sunday, February 11, 2001
Albuquerque Journal
By Paul Logan
URL: http://www.abqjournal.com/news/248953news02-11-01.htm

Charles "Bud" Avery helped work on a plan for limiting the production of nuclear weapons in the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1960s. Earlier, he was one of the pilots in the famed Berlin Airlift. Avery, a retired Air Force colonel and longtime Albuquerque resident, died Feb. 3 of complications from diabetes and a fractured hip at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Albuquerque. He was 77.

A service was held Friday in the Kirtland Air Force Base Chapel. A funeral will be Feb. 23 at Fort Myers Old Chapel in Arlington, Va., with burial at Arlington National Cemetery.

Avery was most noted for his nuclear weapons safety work, said retired Col. Charles G. "Moose" Mathison, former commanding officer at Kirtland Air Force Base. The two worked together when Avery was the Department of Energy representative on the Air Force Safety Group in the 1970s.

"He was very straightforward, very direct in his work and very capable," Mathison said. "He was very smart and very congenial. He was a good man."

Frances Sinfield Avery, his wife of 53 years, said her husband's most challenging assignment was working in the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He worked on the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, later known as the SALT Treaty.

It was around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Americans feared Soviet nuclear attack.

"It was at the height of the Cold War," his wife said. "It was a very scary time. People who take history courses now need to realize that it was a very risky time."

Avery also was involved with the USSR in the late 1940s. After World War II, the Soviets tried to block all rail, water and highway routes through East Germany to Berlin. They hoped to drive the Western Allies from their sectors in the divided city and force West Germans to accept Communism.

Avery was part of the Allies' airlift to supply more than 2 million West Berliners. The Russians eventually lifted their blockade.

"(The airlift) basically saved the city of Berlin," she said. "He was very proud of that."

Avery lived his life by the U.S. Military Academy creed of duty, honor and country, she said, calling him the most honest individual she has ever known.

A son, Charles Jr., died in 1968.

Survivors include sons Scott of McLean, Va., Kent of Annandale, Va., and Chris of Albuquerque.

Memorial donations can be made to the charity of one's choice.

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

-------- washington

Tank burped, and Hanford feels relieved
Dangerous buildup of explosive gas is averted in radioactive waste container

Friday, February 9, 2001
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
By LINDA ASHTON
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/local/burp09.shtml

YAKIMA -- The notorious "burping" tank at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation has been declared cured of its potentially explosive hydrogen gas emission problems, the U.S. Department of Energy said yesterday.

Tank SY-101 was removed last month from a congressional watch list of the most dangerous tanks that hold highly radioactive waste at the central Washington reservation.

"I'm glad to see a creative solution to this serious and long-standing problem and glad to cross this extremely dangerous tank off the watch list," said U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who wrote the federal law creating the list. "Now, we need to finish the job, and make sure all the tanks threatening the Columbia River and our citizens downstream are made permanently secure."

Tank SY-101, built in 1977, is one of 177 underground tanks in the 200 Area of Hanford that hold nearly 54 million gallons of highly radioactive waste from four decades of plutonium production.

In 1990, 60 Hanford tanks were on the list. Today, there are 24.

In the late 1980s, the mix of deadly waste in the 1.2 million gallon SY-101 tank began building up and releasing hydrogen gas in huge "burps" every 100 days or so. On two or three occasions, the quantities were so large -- as much as 10,000 cubic feet in 5 minutes -- they exceeded safety limits for flammability for eight hours at a time.

"If there had been an ignition source, we might not be talking today," said Craig Groendyke, flammable gas project manager for DOE's Office of River Protection.

In 1993, a mixer pump was installed in the tank, to stir the waste and keep the gases from building up. But the solution created new problems.

By 1998, the surface level of the waste in the tank was beginning to rise, as gas bubbles became trapped in a thick crust floating in the liquid, raising concerns that it could spill over the inner containment walls.

"The surface level rise was not anticipated. We hadn't seen that phenomenon," Groendyke said.

In December 1999, Hanford crews began transferring some waste from the tank and diluting it with water, dissolving the gas-retaining solids.

About 520,000 gallons of waste were removed from the tank and 434,000 gallons of water were added. The waste was then stirred again with the mixer pump.

"At that point, we're there," Groendyke said. "We modified the chemistry of the tank so there were insufficient solids to retain gas."

The tank still generates gas, which is vented. But no problems have surfaced since the last mixing, April 1.

The gas is not usually radioactive, Groendyke said, but a filtering system would capture any radioactive particles.

"The outfall of this was a great deal of knowledge about the gas retention mechanism," Groendyke said. "For tanks that are borderline, a lower hazard level than SY-101, we know water dilution will solve our problems."

Tanks cannot be removed from the watch list until DOE determines that the safety problem is resolved. A Tanks Advisory Panel made up of university and industry specialists in hazardous waste, radioactive materials and waste management review the documentation.

The remaining 24 Hanford tanks on the list are all there because of flammable gas hazards, but they are expected to be removed by Sept. 30.

SY-101 had the most concentrated waste of the Hanford tanks, consequently the worst problems.

The removal of SY-101 from the watch list means that Hanford can now use the tank for additional waste.

It currently has capacity for about 120,000 gallons more.

SY-101 is one of the newer 28 double-wall tanks, which DOE and its contractor CH2M Hill are using for interim storage by pumping liquid waste out of 149 leak-prone, older, single-shell tanks.

At least 1 million gallons of highly toxic and radioactive waste in 67 of old single-wall tanks have leaked, some reaching groundwater and threatening the Columbia River.

Eventually, about 10 percent of the 54 million gallons of waste is to be treated at a vitrification plant -- still in the design phase -- and turned into glass logs for long-term storage.

-------- MILITARY

-------- drug war

Cautious U.S. Hope on Report of Lower Afghan Opium Crop

February 11, 2001
New York Times
By BARBARA CROSSETTE
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/11/world/11DRUG.html

UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 9 - A top narcotics expert in the United States Drug Enforcement Administration said this week that American agencies were receiving reports similar to those received by United Nations agencies of a sharply reduced opium crop in Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan, but he cautioned that it was too soon to confirm the trend or to explain the cause.

United Nations narcotics officials in the region began a survey last week that appeared to show large areas of the country taken out of poppy cultivation. Last year, Afghanistan had the world's largest opium poppy crop, accounting for nearly three-quarters of all production. Opium is the base for making heroin.

In Washington, Steven Casteel, chief of intelligence for the Drug Enforcement Administration, said in an interview that drawing the conclusion that the ruling Taliban have definitely begun to cut back significantly "is a bit premature."

Using electronic surveillance and informers on the ground, Mr. Casteel said, the United States expects to have a firmer measurement of this year's Afghan opium crop by the end of March or early April.

"From a law enforcement perspective, we're just extremely cautious about this - cautiously optimistic but cautious," Mr. Casteel said. "To see a sudden turnaround in this, I am more interested almost not in what is happening but why."

Mr. Casteel said a severe drought might be a factor in the reduction, an explanation United Nations drug experts also mention. Whatever the cause, a substantial drop in opium poppy production could help the Taliban ease its diplomatic isolation.

The militant Islamic government, which controls most of the country, has been under Security Council sanctions for not turning over to the United States Osama bin Laden, who is believed to finance terrorism, and has been criticized widely for its human rights record.

In the longer term, Mr. Casteel said, narcotics experts will be looking for evidence that a sudden reduction in poppy growing in Afghanistan could be linked to financial decisions by international drug dealers.

"These organizations are getting more sophisticated," he said. "They make multinational business decisions. This could be simply a price issue." Opium, he added, can be stockpiled indefinitely and released later for maximum profit.

"If you are making widgets, and you stockpile your widgets for a period of time and get the price to double or treble, that's a business decision you probably want to do," he said. "So we're seeing the price of heroin that a few months ago - before the Taliban's ban on opium poppies - was probably between $600 and $700 is now going for as much as $2,500."

American experts agree with United Nations officials that there are stockpiles of heroin along the northern border of Afghanistan, but there is no clear sense of who is in charge of it.

Mr. Casteel said individuals connected to both the Taliban and their opponents fighting for about 5 percent of the country's northeast had been linked to drug traders.

-------- iraq

Iraq: 7 Hurt in Allied Airstrikes

February 11, 2001
Associated Press
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iraq-US.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Iraq said U.S. and British warplanes injured seven people and destroyed 17 houses in airstrikes Sunday in the southern part of the country.

Bombs hit civilian buildings and military installations in the provinces of Basra and Maisan, an unidentified military spokesman said in comments carried by the official Iraqi News Agency.

The strikes injured four men, two women and a 4-year-old child, the spokesman said. He said the houses were destroyed in Basra, 340 miles south of Baghdad.

``Our heroic missile units confronted the enemy warplanes, forcing them to leave our skies,'' the spokesman added.

The U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla., said U.S. and British planes struck anti-aircraft artillery sites in southern Iraq in response to anti-aircraft artillery fire against its planes.

Allied aircraft patrol no-fly zones established after the 1991 Gulf War to protect Shiite Muslim rebels in southern Iraq and Kurds in the north from Iraqi government forces.

The United States and Britain say the planes never target civilians, but Iraq often reports civilian casualties.

Iraq does not recognize the no-fly zones and has been challenging allied aircraft since December 1998.

-------- space

Astronauts Bolt Laboratory to Space Station

February 11, 2001
New York Times
By WARREN E. LEARY
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/11/science/11SHUT.html

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 - Moving with slow precision, astronauts working inside and out of the shuttle Atlantis today installed the key Destiny science laboratory to the International Space Station.

Using the shuttle's 50-foot robot arm, the astronaut Marsha S. Ivins maneuvered the massive, 29,500-pound module from the shuttle's cargo bay and inched it into its permanent position on the station.

Guided by external television cameras and her two spacewalking colleagues, Ms. Ivins, who could not clearly see the laboratory from her position inside the shuttle, moved the module into its initial latched position at 1:58 p.m. Eastern time.

The American-made Destiny segment, built at a cost of $1.38 billion by the Boeing Company, is the scientific heart of the station and a central part of controlling the entire outpost.

When the computers in the module are operational, control of the station's position in space, communications and other functions will be shifted in coming months from Russia to a command center in Houston.

When Destiny was firmly latched and bolted to the American-made Unity connecting node at 2:12 p.m., the complex of linked modules became the largest space station ever put into place, exceeding the volume of Russia's Mir and the earlier American Skylab.

With the addition, the habitable volume of the international station increased by 41 percent while its mass went up to 112 tons. The main part of the station, now made up of two Russian and two American pressurized segments, stretches 171 feet in length.

After congratulations from Mission Control in Houston, Navy Cmdr. Robert L. Curbeam Jr. and Thomas D. Jones, on the first of three space walks they are scheduled to make during the 11-day mission that started Wednesday, began the painstaking job of connecting nine electrical cables and four cooling tubes to Destiny so it could be activated later in the day.

The work stalled briefly when ammonia in one of the cooling tubes leaked as Commander Curbeam first connected it to Destiny, spraying a shower of crystals into space. With advice from ground control and assistance from Mr. Jones, the astronauts were able to complete the cooling connections and go on to finish the electrical cables, which carry power, computer commands and data between Destiny and the rest of the station.

Because of possible ammonia contamination, flight officials ordered the astronauts to take a brush from a tool bag and clean off Commander Curbeam's suit before re-entering the shuttle to prevent carrying the toxic substance inside. The extra procedures pushed the spacewalk past its planned six and a half hours.

Installing the Destiny module is one of the most crucial steps in building the $60 billion orbiting station, National Aeronautics and Space Administration officials have said.

The module is the first of five research laboratories planned for the station, scheduled for completion in 2006, and the cornerstone for an anticipated 10 to 15 years worth of scientific work in space.

Before Atlantis began the Destiny installation, the mission commander, Kenneth D. Cockrell, had to fire the shuttle's thruster rockets to raise the orbit of the connected spacecraft by a mile.

The unplanned maneuver was necessary to avoid a piece of space junk that was calculated to pass within 820 feet of the complex.

The five Atlantis astronauts and the three-man crew that has been aboard the station since November were to spend Sunday activating the new module and preparing for the next spacewalk, which involves attaching a docking port and other equipment to Destiny on Monday.

-------- OTHER

-------- alternative energy

USA is safe from mad cow

02/11/2001
USA Today
http://usatoday.com/news/comment/2001-02-12-nceditf.htm

Until a few weeks ago, American consumers were blissfully innocent of the reality of mad cow disease, a fatal affliction that can be transmitted from cattle to humans through contaminated meat. While the disease has killed more than 90 people in Europe, so far no cases have been reported in the United States. But alarms are jangling:

Last week, USA TODAY reported that 4.5 million American servicemen and dependents might have consumed beef supplied by the United Kingdom until 1996, during the peak of the U.K.'s mad cow epidemic. Last month, 1,222 head of Texas cattle were given feed laced with animal protein derived from other cattle, which is thought to be the chief pathway of transmission. Wild and captive U.S. populations of deer, elk, sheep, goats and mink have been found with closely related diseases. In Europe, mad cow was discovered recently in previously uninfected nations, including Germany and Italy.

All of that has focused attention on Washington's patchy response. In 1989, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) banned cattle and other cud-chewing animals from mad cow-infected nations. In 1997, it expanded the ban to include all of Europe, along with many products made from those animals. Also in 1997, the Food and Drug Administration enacted regulations to keep slaughterhouse remains out of cattle feed, since scientists believe that feeding cow parts to cows spreads the disease. Blood donations from certain travelers are prohibited, and the FDA has suggested that drug makers not use bovine products from infected nations to make vaccines.

Even so, European researchers recently concluded that the risk of mad cow disease spreading to the United States "cannot be excluded" and that the United States may have received tons of possibly infected bovine products. Moreover, there are still no import controls on cattle byproducts used in food supplements and cosmetics. And precautions, such as the FDA's "guidance" to drug manufacturers that use bovine ingredients in vaccines, aren't being universally followed.

Meanwhile, screening and enforcement of existing rules are loose at best. The USDA has tested only 12,000 cattle for mad cow since 1996 out of almost 1 million with suspicious symptoms. And more than three years after the FDA's regulations on feed producers, hundreds have yet to be inspected. For the thousands that have been, violations run as high as 28% - and almost 40% for small mills that don't require FDA licenses.

Should this tattered safety net fail, the results could be horrendously disruptive. In Europe, Germany's top health and agriculture officials resigned last month after the disease was found there. Slaughters aimed at controlling the diseases have sparked protests in Italy, Spain and France. Ireland is struggling with the disposal of 300,000 animals it will slaughter by June. And the European Union will spend $1 billion covering farmers' losses, surely not enough.

The cattle industry in the United States is better insulated than Europe's, and it relies less on the animal-based feeds. But as Europe shows, the consequences of miscalculation are staggering, and as recent news suggests, the nation's safety net is far from perfect. In that light, the confidence of technocrats and scientists in our statistical safety is neither intuitive nor reassuring.

---

Keep risk in perspective

02/11/2001
USA Today
By George Gray and David Ropeik
http://usatoday.com/news/comment/2001-02-12-ncoppf.htm

Mad cow mania is building in America, despite the fact that a thorough set of government systems is in place to reduce the risk of the disease showing up here and to keep it from spreading if one sick animal does enter the country. In our judgment, the risk that mad cow disease could happen in the USA is low, and the risk that it could spread as it did in Europe is lower still. A greater threat might be that public fear could well exceed actual risk. This could create more damage to public health than mad cow disease itself.

We have spent two and a half years studying this issue for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Although our work is not complete, what we have learned so far suggests that consumers have little to fear. Of course, safety depends on compliance with government regulations and other preventive systems. Risks remain low only to the extent that the government ban on the importation of susceptible animals and products from Europe, and controls on the practice of using animal parts to fortify animal feed, are effective. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently conceded that compliance with the feed ban is wanting.

It shouldn't take much to get the industry to comply. It's in its self-interest to do the right thing. It will be tougher to get the public to keep the overall risk of mad cow disease in perspective. A firestorm of public fear could do more damage to public health than the disease itself might do.

Additional government measures to enforce existing rules and close loopholes in the system make sense. But public fear of hazards such as mad cow disease tends to demand zero risk, which is, of course, unattainable. Time and money spent trying to eliminate the last tiny fraction of the mad cow risk won't be available to protect us from higher food-related risks, such as bacterial contamination, which sends 323,000 people to the hospital and kills 5,000 people in the USA each year - far more illness and death than mad cow disease is likely to create in America, in the unlikely event it does get in.

Mad cow disease is dreadful. We should do everything reasonable to keep it out. But we must keep this risk, indeed all risks, in perspective if we are to make informed decisions that maximize public health and safety in a world of limited resources.

George Gray is the director of the Program on Food Safety and Agriculture, and David Ropeik is the director of Risk Communication at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.

----

Fears of Mad Cow Disease Reach Bullfighting Rings

February 11, 2001
New York Times
By EMMA DALY
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/11/world/11SPAI.html?pagewanted=all

AJALVIR, Spain - To the sound of trumpets and the applause of an expectant crowd, the three imperious matadors stalked into the damp ring, manfully ignoring the bitter chill of a freezing Sunday to take part in what promoters billed as the first great bullfight of the new century.

In the hope of glory and hard cash, the men would risk their own lives to take those of six bulls bred for this moment. It was a scene integral to Spain's fiesta nacional, one destined to play out almost 1,000 times over the next 9 or 10 months.

And yet this year things will be as never before, for the shadow of mad- cow disease now looms over the corrida de toros, the bullfight, where some 40,000 animals are slaughtered each year, producing more than $10 million worth of prized meat.

No case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy has ever been detected in a bull from the ring, but the fears of losing money from mad-cow disease are already stalking matadors and especially the breeders and impresarios who organize bullfights.

Under the new regulations adopted by the European Union, the meat of bulls killed in the ring - a major source of money to finance the corrida - can no longer spice the stews of local restaurants.

The new rules decreed that any animal over the age of 30 months - and that includes all fighting bulls, which normally enter the ring at the age of 4 or 5 years - must be tested for mad-cow disease, a procedure possible only after the animal is dead. Traditionally, veterinarians check bulls killed in the ring for injury or disease before pronouncing their meat fit for consumption.

But testing involves cutting off the bull's head and sending it to a laboratory for analysis, a process that can take days, leaving impresarios with the problem of where to store cadavers until they receive test results.

Adolfo Rodríguez of the National Association of Bull Breeders said the biggest complication is that "most corridas take place in August and September, when much of Spain is on vacation, including the officials supposed to administer the tests."

And Jaime Sebastián de Erice, the secretary general of the Union of Breeders of Fighting Bulls, said that without a swift solution, 80 percent of Spain's bullfights, most of them in small towns and villages, like this one 12 miles from Madrid, could disappear.

So the disease is a prime topic of conversation in Ajalvir, whose fiesta is traditionally Spain's first bullfight of the new year. Antonio Fernández, a member of the village's fiesta committee, fears the loss in meat sales means the community will have to provide a hefty subsidy to keep its bullfight going.

Lázaro Carmona, whose company ran the bullfight, finds it paradoxical that mad-cow disease, thought to be caused by contaminated feed and thus associated with intensive farming as practiced by agricultural-business giants, should affect an industry in which the animals are cherished.

"Bull meat is very safe, very organic - they live wild in the countryside - and very tasty, and it is a shame to lose the meat because of this illness," he said.

Mr. Carmona said he would normally sell the meat of six bulls for $1,750; their incarceration costs about the same. "We need a proper solution," he said. "There are not even enough incinerators to cremate all the bulls during the high season."

In Ajalvir's somewhat desultory fight - spirits dampened by wet weather and the thought of disappearing profits - an almost 1,000- pound bull named Noriko was the first victim. Miguel Martín, wearing a lilac suit embroidered in gold, swept his cape expertly before the charging bull, eventually felling it by cleanly inserting a sword between the animal's shoulder blades.

The ring president handed Mr. Martín the prize of the bull's two ears, proudly paraded by the matador as his fans tossed scarves, hats and flowers in the sand.

On the asphalt outside, the bull's body - dragged from the ring by two horses - was cut loose. A yellow bulldozer rumbled over and, with singular lack of ceremony, scooped it up and dumped it in an open truck.

By dusk, the bodies of six bulls lay there, their hides stained blue to ensure that no one tried to cheat and sell their meat to a slaughterhouse.

Mr. Martín and two matadors who won ears on their second fights had to surrender their trophies, too, since the European rules stipulate that bulls be destroyed in their entirety. "We are hoping to get plastic ears instead," Mr. Martín explained as he left the ring, mobbed by supporters.

Pablo Mayoral of La Laguna farm, which bred the six bulls, dismissed the possibility that one of his animals would ever test positive for mad-cow disease, because his animals are fed vegetable protein.

If an animal does test positive, the European Union requires the slaughter of the entire herd. Mr. Sebastián de Erice said the breeders have asked the government to amend the rules so that only the infected animal has to die. Whether the European Union would go along is unclear.

Mr. Sebastián de Erice and Mr. Rodríguez are hoping against hope that a test for mad-cow disease will be available for live animals by next season. "That," said Mr. Sebastián de Erice, "would be a viable solution."

-------- activists

Statehood Greens

Feb. 24 3-5 pm at UDC

Sun, 11 Feb 2001
Dear ALL,

On February 24, the Statehood Greens will hold a reception for newcomers, recruits, likely members, political activists and disenchanted citizens. We wish to attract and welcome all those who are looking for an instrument, an avenue, and a commitment to dismantling the corporate structure that controls (local and national)our government and our lives.

Please come; please bring likeminded people; please pass the word - a third party is what you are looking for - and The Statehood Green Party is it.

FEBRUARY 24, 3-5 PM, UDC, AUDITORIUM, BLDG 42, REDLINE METRO

---

Fuki Kushida, Campaigner in Japan for Peace and Women's Rights, Dies at 101

February 11, 2001
New York Times
By PAUL LEWIS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/11/world/11KUSH.html

Fuki Kushida, a pioneer Japanese campaigner for women's rights, a peace activist and an opponent of nuclear weapons, died at her home in Tokyo on Monday, a family announcement said. She was 101.

In February last year, at the age of 1OO, Ms. Kushida made headlines from her wheelchair, leading a demonstration of Japanese women in the Ginza district of Tokyo against closer military ties with the United States.

Last summer, she also led protests against United States military bases on Okinawa after a United States Marine was charged with molesting a 14-year-old Japanese girl in her own bed on the eve of President Clinton's visit to the island for a summit meeting.

"The recurrence of such unforgivable crimes by U.S. soldiers is extremely upsetting," Ms. Kushida said in a statement. "As long as U.S. bases exist there, our fear will never end and violence against women will continue."

Born in Yamaguchi Prefecture on Feb. 17, 1899, Ms. Kushida entered the Women's University in Tokyo but dropped out to marry Tamizo Kushida, a Marxist economist who died before the outbreak of World War II.

Left at 35 with two children to support and little money, Ms. Kushida worked as an insurance saleswomen and magazine reporter.

The hardships she experienced made her aware of the difficult lives many Japanese women led and encouraged her to devote her life to working for the advancement of women and the promotion of world peace.

After World War II, she joined the emerging Japanese feminist movement and worked with Yuriko Miyamoto, a leading feminist writer of the time. In 1946 Ms. Kushida became the first secretary general of a newly established feminist and peace organization called the Women's Democratic Club.

In 1958 she was elected third president of the Federation of Japanese Women's Organizations, a group opposed to nuclear weapons and committed to promoting peace. Today it encompasses 19 organizations and has about 900,000 members.

------- Onelist (submissions from subscribers)