NucNews - December 13, 2004 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety Tritium Exit Light Maker Denied License Renewal WASHINGTON, DC, December 13, 2004 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2004/2004-12-13-09.asp#anchor8 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has denied applications to renew the two licenses of the Safety Light Corporation in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania. The agency has also issued an order suspending the licenses when they expire at the end of this month. Presently, the company manufactures self-luminous exit signs using the radioactive element tritium under one of its NRC licenses. The other license authorizes characterization and decommissioning of contaminated facilities, equipment and land from previous operations at the site. The low energy beta radiation from tritium cannot penetrate human skin, so tritium is only dangerous if consumed in large quantities. Small amounts are used with phosphors for self-illuminating devices such as watches and exit signs. But in its application requesting the renewal of the two licenses, the company did not provide a decommissioning funding plan, as required. Instead, the company requested that the NRC grant an exemption from this requirement. The company made a similar request when renewing its licenses in 1999. The Commission granted that request with two conditions - that the company make payments to the decommissioning trust fund at a set schedule, and that the company demonstrate compliance with NRC requirements regarding decommissioning funding at the time of its next renewal. Because the company did not fully comply with those requirements, it has failed to satisfy both of the conditions for renewal of the licenses. The NRC says it issued the order suspending the company’s licenses when they expire on December 31, because the agency found that the failure to make the required payments was "willful and adversely affected the safe conduct of activities under the company’s licenses." The order also requires Safety Light to submit to the NRC by December 20 a plan for an orderly shutdown of its licensed activities. Because Safety Light did not comply with the Commission's substantive requirements, "The staff does not have the requisite assurance in Safety Light's ability to comply with those requirements in the future," said Jack Strosnider, director of the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. "Consequently, the staff is unable to make the requisite findings to grant an exemption." Safety Light has 20 days to request a hearing on this issue. -------- depleted uranium A Letter of Apology to the People of Iraq tnimc.org by Larry E. Park 13 Dec 2004 http://www.tnimc.org/feature/display/3878/index.php A letter of apology to the Iraqi people from a Vietnam Army medic who cared for some of the most severely injured men, women, children and babies from both sides of that conflict in 1970 and 71. My arms have held the dead of war, and I understand the catastrophic toll in the present and the impact it will have on future generations. This is my personal sobering apology, and it may or may not reflect some of the feelings of the other 49 percent of Americans who voted for an anti-war candidate. While I was in Vietnam, four war protesting students at one of our universities named Kent State were shot and killed by American National Guardsmen, and it appears that the some of the Guards of justice have sacrificed national core values and integrity on the battlefields and in the military prisons of Iraq. I feel shame and outrage when like you, I have witnessed unimaginable acts against humanity. See link: http://www.spectacle.org/595/kent.html I feel shame that I did not raise my voice in dissent prior to this horrific conflict between cultures. I survived Vietnam with full understanding of what a guerilla war means and the futility of large, noisy, highly visible armies attempting to subjugate citizens by force instead of winning hearts and minds over to a more positive pursuit of happiness. With a great sense of doom I watched the events over the past three years as a complacent bystander, not knowing how to make a difference in public opinion. I was silent, not exercising my freedom of speech or finding creative means to make my voice against unjustified death and destruction heard effectively. I made a mistake in judgment and action. I knew better. I am very sad about what is happening in Iraq to the families, their homes, schools, hospitals, shops, and places where they work to support their families. I apologize for not defending your right to choose how you live and what style of leadership you support. I understood that my leaders prompted by public opinion had to deliver visible signs of revenge against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and most of the world seemed to support that conflict. But when I woke up one morning to the specter of my countrymen invading Iraq to make a regime change, I squirmed with discomfort. I, like you and most of the world, held the motivations of the United States to be suspect and driven by self interests in oil. Rhetoric about freeing the Iraqi people from an oppressive regime seemed righteously hollow and a revolution against Saddam Hussein’s entrenched regime and all its supporters was not ours to wage. In most cases it is better that a country clean its own house and take responsibility for how the hard work is carried out and when the time is right for change. I apologize for our arrogance in thinking we knew what was the best course of social-political direction for Iraq and our subsequent military intervention in such a destabilizing and catastrophic manner. Our vision of the future is not yours, and you must as a group decide how you will help each other achieve and maintain basic freedom and your pursuit of happiness. I apologize for denying knowledge of your basic beliefs and belittling your ancient core cultural values. And from your perspective I understand why we are the barbarians on your land. Freedom is not a gift, it is a choice requiring daily action to reaffirm long term goals and guide one in the pursuit of happiness. Conflict on a personal or national level often ensues as differences in opinion emerge about how to equitably achieve goals within the context of the group’s culture and the world at large. Freedom from uncontrolled selfish interests and greed can only be acquired by an attitude of the heart as shaped by personal internal core values. Coercion by threat of death may change observable behavior in the short run, but rarely changes core values that support long term behavior shifts. I apologize for our apparent ignorance concerning this key characteristic of human behavior. I am ashamed of our recent example of Democracy in the Presidential race for power. If we are attempting to persuade you to adopt our form of Democracy, then I am less than proud on how we spent billions to get out the vote and prompt individuals to exercise freedom of choice. Decisions seemed to be made based on whether or not a candidate hunts innocent winged creatures for sport or who tells the most convincing lies and makes the best promises that we all know can’t be kept like, “Independence from foreign oil.” I cast my first registered vote in 35 years since Vietnam for an antiwar candidate, but now I’ve drifted back into darkness in search for such a man with an honest face and heart. I was caring for the infected stump of a women’s leg that had been amputated on the day in New York that has changed all of us on the planet and now many men, women, and children are missing parts of their bodies due to this horrific 9/11 event and the revengeful war that has followed. As a nurse it is my job to care for the wounds of childbirth, automobile accidents, gunshots, knives and surgery. With great sadness I remember all the wounded in Vietnam and I feel a great sense of empathy for those who have lost arms or legs. On 9/11 out of the darkness a predator delivered a savage whack to our head. Dazed, we feebly wiped the tears and blood from our eyes, struggled to our feet while peering into the forest of darkness. Shapes blended with shadow until with trembling hands we switched on the flashlight illuminating our attacker. Anonymous faces of dead suicide terrorists were replaced by world renowned organizations of men hell bent on upsetting the balance of power on the planet. These social-political shadow warriors using the tactics of guerilla warfare in a David and Goliath confrontation dealt a significant psychological blow. We plunged into the darkness, grouped for the enemy, halted their retreat, battered them blow after blow hardly feeling the pain of more injuries to ourselves. Like an old John Wayne slugfest started by drunks intoxicated with bravado unsure of who started what, all parties lay in an exhausted heap strewn across the bar room floor. Weary from the conflict without the long gone adrenaline rush of the initial hollow victory, we assess the damage to property and person. The man with the biggest stick can claim the high moral ground by mercifully suggesting a lasting peace based on freedom of choice to change our hearts versus fleeting pretensions under duress. A million more soldiers might force a temporary “peace,” but the human revengeful heart rarely changes to the side of mercy and compassion in such circumstances. What kind of peace do we want? A peace driven by fear looking down the barrel of a Colt or a peace that emanates from hearts that have chosen to be helpful and nice to their immediate and global neighbors. I have seen the consequences of war and revenge and it is not pretty! History is replete with stories of rape, pillaging, burning, destruction of person and property and within the last ten years starting with the Gulf war, Desert Storm, we the United States of America introduced weapons of mass environmental and genetic destruction. I am ashamed of my ignorance about my government using depleted radioactive uranium munitions in Iraq. Standing two hours in the rain waiting to cast my first vote of a lifetime for our next President gave me ample time to angrily contemplate what the 70-year-old female election volunteer told me about deaths of Iraqi children, increased genetic defects among children of Desert Storm Vets and the hidden truth of “Gulf War Syndrome.” Having my head in the sands of Iraq, I did not know that we were the first to manufacture and use weapons of mass habitat and genetic destruction using nuclear waste called depleted uranium in Desert Storm, Bosnia, etc., as found on the Internet upon my return home from voting as she recommended. See links concerning these issues. (http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/appeal.htm) (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR407A.html Since I always attempt to gather facts and then reach a balance of opinion, I searched the web with reserve due to the hidden agendas of most websites. Well, if even a portion of information available about armor piercing hardened artillery shells using radioactive depleted uranium is credible and documented damage to wheat crops, increased birth defects, Gulf War Syndrome, and death of Iraqis children by the tens of thousands after exposure is true, then that is a serious cover-up. A half-life of 4.4 billion years is a long time even if the material in question is depleted of isotopes. Looking for the splinter of WMD in the enemy's eye while being blinded by the railroad tie poisoned by depleted uranium sticking out of our heads must make us appear really outrageous in the eyes not afflicted around the globe. Obviously if there is any truth in this environmental military disaster, I understand why the press in general is afraid to address this radioactive subject, which maybe Rumsfeld was thinking about when he called the Abu Ghraib prison abuse situation "radioactive." Being a responsible citizen and taking a stand on issues that will affect the only planet we have is hard work even though now the sand in my eyes in retrospect did not hurt as much as the knowledge I have gained about the use of depleted uranium in the manufacturer of munitions. Having reviewed some of the documents available on the Internet posted by health and political organizations pertaining to this inhumane radioactive weapon, there seems to be more credible evidence indicating short and long term risks associated with the use of depleted uranium munitions than our government is willing to openly acknowledge. Little did I know that standing in line to vote would open such a big can of worms that might glow. I am outraged at the possibility of my tax dollars contributing to use of depleted uranium in munitions which might cause alterations in the genes of humans and plants. This is our weapon of mass destruction and I am downcast and ashamed! This knowledge shared with me by an old lady might well be part and parcel of the rage exhibited in the aggravated assault on the Twin Towers of 9/11. If I saw in our heartland fields mutated wheat standing just inches where heads on tall stalks ready for harvest should have proudly waved in the breeze, I would be very angry at the perpetrator of this ecological disaster. Bread is still one of the basic food sources for humans, so if any of the information about the devastating short and potential long term effects of using depleted uranium munitions is remotely true, then I am outraged and I apologize for not holding my government more accountable. The very life of the entire planet depends on all of its inhabitants being responsible for sustaining earth’s ability to feed us. That means that we are all interdependent, and what we do or don’t do affects us all. I apologize for being so selfish and wanting more than most families in Iraq have. If one believes in a Creator God called Allah who loves the Biblical people of Iraq so much that He buried some of the world’s richest oil reserves below their barren deserts, then one would have to believe that He planned to care for their needs. Poverty in such an oil rich land where many of its inhabitants want for the basics can only be understood in the light of mismanagement and the greed of its ruling class. As an American I am ashamed to admit that even though our wealth is accumulated differently, we too have large numbers of disadvantaged and impoverish families. Those who have more always use overt or covert methods to suppress those who have less and when the status quo is upset, many are willing to fight to the death to regain their previous advantages and social standing. Right or wrong, I apologize for the manner in which my country has upset the balance of chaotic power in Iraq. I am outraged at the visible destruction of your mosques, hospitals, schools, homes, and infrastructure in our zeal to root out those who are attempting to protect their families and way of life. I am very sad when I think about how hard it will be and how long it will take for your people to rebuild their homes. It is obvious that powerful underground insurgent leaders have commanded loyal religious fanatics to strategically increase lethal attacks on fellow Iraqis and Coalition Forces, escalating strikes as Election Day marches closer. This anti-American campaign is more than just mere pre-election mud slinging, it’s deadly! Instead of ads and other antics being measured in millions of dollars from unknown sources, the insurgents' campaign can be measured in lives ended and lifelong disabilities incurred by the survivors. Yes, this Iraqi pre-election campaign may be forgotten for cities ransacked, loss of helpful Foreign Aid workers, and the maiming and slaughter of men, women, children and babies by Coalition Forces, but Iraqis buried in pauper’s mass graves will be remembered longer by their families. I feel intensely sad about the mess your people find themselves in when the sun rises every day and I apologize for not attempting to convince leaders of my country to pursue a more positive course of helpful interdependence. I mourn for all the families around the globe forever changed and damaged by conflicts that diminish their sense of hope. I feel ashamed by the darkness spread throughout your land by the American invasion and my hope for the future is that countries of such diverse cultural beliefs could at least agree to search for ways to be mutually beneficial and cordially interdependent without devastating conflict and long term damage to the environment. I carried a typewriter to Vietnam, not a gun, and instead of killing humans, I planted flowers and was awarded a Bronze Star medal for extending hope to others. I’ve seen the desert bloom and I fervently wish that the Iraqi people in the darkness of wartime death can find their way into the hopeful light of flowers again blooming in springtime. I know that this letter of apology would mean a lot more coming from my President or a great man of world renowned stature like Colin Powell, but George W. Bush can’t and Colin Powell could speak his mind if he had not committed himself to a vow of silence. I fully understand that this letter of apology for some of my countrymen will be perceived as undermining the military forces of the Coalition who are following their orders from their Commander and Chief. I am exercising my rights to freedom of speech with full knowledge of increased personal risk and endangerment of my immediate family members, but as with all conflicts the price is always paid by families. The specter of danger seems insignificant in comparison to the horrific number of deaths and injuries already incurred by countless humans of different gender, race, culture, nationality, and age. I feel immensely sad that the leaders of my country seem not to remember the lessons learned by those who served in Vietnam and I apologize. I wish I could speak for the leaders of my country and tell you that, “Yes, we made a mistake and we won’t do it again in your country or anywhere else on the planet ever again.” Those words would only be spoken by a lying politician running for high office and probably not in my lifetime.They will have to speak for themselves and answer to the reality of history not their dreams. Apologetically; Larry E. Park TheDreamer (at) OceansRest.com ----- It Wins Wars -- But at What Cost? Chapter 3: The Silver Bullet. Daily Press BY BOB EVANS December 13, 2004 http://www.dailypress.com/news/specials/dp-du3,0,4750505.story?coll=dp-breaking-news The United States began developing depleted uranium weapons in the 1950s. But the first one wasn't fired in combat until the 1991 Persian Gulf War. It didn't take long for the weapons to show that the wait was worth it. Soldiers on the battlefield were so impressed, they quickly began calling depleted uranium "The Silver Bullet," in recognition of its seemingly magical capabilities and exterior metallic color. They also began calling it "DU." Although the U.S. tank gunners firing the weapons had never used them before - even in training - they were immediately able to hit and destroy heavy Soviet-made Iraqi tanks and armored vehicles from two miles away, military officials crowed in congressional hearings afterward. The weapon that it replaced, made from tungsten, wasn't effective from more than a mile and a half, they said. That's the equivalent of two boxers squaring off, one with 4-foot-long arms, the other with 3-foot-long arms. "What we want to be able to do is strike the target from farther away than we can be hit back, and we want the target to be destroyed when we shoot at it," Col. Jim Naughton, then-head of munitions for the Army Materiel Command, said just days before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. "And we don't want to fight even. Nobody goes into a war and wants to be even with the enemy. We want to be ahead, and DU gives us that advantage." This battlefield benefit might be in danger, though. A growing number of medical researchers are finding evidence that the residue of depleted uranium weapons might be deadly to our own troops. Every time that a depleted uranium weapon hits its target, it leaves behind millions of tiny pieces of black dust that are mildly radioactive. The vast majority of those pieces are small enough to be inhaled. Researchers have found evidence that even a single piece of the dust in direct contact with a human cell begins the kind of genetic transformations thought to be the first steps toward cancer. They've also found evidence that inhaled uranium can be transferred to the brain. A number of researchers think that proof of the dust's migration to the brain might explain some of the widespread neurological illness among veterans of the 1991 Gulf War. The Pentagon has dismissed this possibility, saying it's an unproven theory. As for the other risks, they say even the highest dose of depleted uranium dust likely to be experienced in battle isn't enough to hurt someone. The Army says a recently completed $6 million study of the effects of inhaled depleted uranium demonstrates that it isn't a significant health risk, especially when the other risks on a battlefield are part of the calculations. Theories and data abound to support both sides. No one disputes that the stakes are high. On one side is the huge advantage that the weapons provided in the Gulf War and last year's Operation Iraqi Freedom. Pentagon officials say many soldiers are alive today because of depleted uranium's effectiveness. On the other hand, there's the possibility that depleted uranium played a part in the illnesses suffered by many of the 697,000 men and women who fought in the 1991 war. More than 26 percent of that war's veterans are on disability, a rate nearly three times higher than experienced in any U.S. war in the past 60 years. Gulf War-related experiences don't account for all those disabilities, but the reason why so many are so sick remains a mystery. Some scientists suspect that it could be a combination of factors, including the black dust. WHY THE WEAPON IS SO POWERFUL The dust is an unavoidable result of depleted uranium weapons, which are especially effective arms for a number of reasons. Depleted uranium is extremely dense, which means it is very heavy relative to the space that it takes up. In the Gulf War, U.S. forces fired thousands of projectiles with depleted uranium - about 320 tons worth. That sounds like a lot, Naughton said, but if you squished it all together, it would make a cube only 8 feet long on each edge. This high density - 1.7 times that of lead - offers important offensive and defensive capabilities in warfare. On defense, it makes for nearly impenetrable armor. Slabs of depleted uranium sandwiched between sheets of tough steel are used in the main U.S. battle tank, the Abrams. Depleted uranium armor has never been penetrated in combat, only in testing under controlled conditions, the Pentagon says. The armor is so good that after the Gulf War, Pentagon officials were fond of telling members of Congress the story of a U.S. Abrams tank crew that suddenly found itself in point-blank proximity to three Russian-made Iraqi tanks in the fog of war. The Iraqis fired first, but their shots bounced off the Abrams' armor, causing at most a crease in the metal. The Abrams' crew then fired 1-2-3 and destroyed all three Iraqi tanks. The last shot went through a sand berm that completely concealed the enemy tank from view after it tried to run and hide, the story went. Lest the military value of depleted uranium be lost in the health controversy, the story is recounted on a Department of Defense Web site established in reaction to allegations that depleted uranium weapons are responsible for some Gulf War veterans' illnesses. Depleted uranium's high density also gives the weapons awesome power. Other than what's necessary to launch a depleted uranium weapon in flight toward a target, it carries no other explosive and isn't a "shell." It is simply a pointed rod of almost pure depleted uranium metal hurling through the air, with fins on the back to give it the stability necessary to ensure that it reaches the target. The deadly darts fired from Abrams tanks are about 2 feet long and less than an inch in diameter. They weigh from 8.5 to 10.6 pounds. Smaller guns equipped to use the weapon shoot even smaller sticks of depleted uranium. But they can be just as effective. The Air Force's A-10 "Warthog" tank-killer aircraft can spit out 4,200 rounds a minute, each about the size of a finger and weighing only two-thirds of a pound, Pentagon officials say. Each one of those fingers can destroy a tank. Launching depleted uranium weapons involves mounting them in cuplike fittings called sabots and then loading them into the weapon. The sabots give the depleted uranium rods a sort of vehicle to ride through the barrel of the gun and out of the muzzle, so the projectile can begin the journey to the target. Once the sabot and depleted uranium rod and its fins clear the muzzle, the sabot falls to the ground. About that point, the depleted uranium weapon is traveling at Mach 3, or three times the speed of sound, says Don Noble, a retired military munitions expert from Williamsburg who helped test the weapons in the 1970s. WHY THE WEAPON IS SO DEADLY Once a depleted uranium weapon reaches its target, the high density, small diameter of the projectile and all that speed means there's a lot of energy packed into a narrow space. Packing lots of energy into a small space is what power is all about. Noble notes that depleted uranium has some very special properties that enhance that power. Unlike most metals, a narrow, sharp-tipped depleted uranium rod doesn't get blunt when it strikes a hard object. It just gets sharper, shedding little bits of depleted uranium - like shavings in a pencil sharpener - as it plows through a hard object such as armor. Those little bits are also on fire - about 3,200 degrees Fahrenheit, a study by the Canadian armed forces found. Researchers call the tiny pieces "fireflies," and they're abundant and visible when a weapon hits the target. For a time, some of these flaming bits become liquid before cooling into tiny irregular-shaped pieces of dust. The depleted uranium rod itself, known as a penetrator, is also on fire at 3,200 degrees as it slides through the hard target, the study says. That's because depleted uranium is pyrophoric, which means that it's capable of igniting spontaneously in the air. If left alone and exposed to air, it will turn black over time. When it strikes something, its exterior bursts into flames but it retains its mass and relative shape, not getting blunt. By the time the weapon has penetrated its target, it's become a fireball that ignites any combustible material nearby - such as fuel, clothing or oxygen - leaving behind the black dust of incinerated particles of depleted uranium as it goes. "As the penetrator enters the crew compartment of the target vehicle, it brings with it a spray of molten metal, as well as shards of both penetrator and vehicle armor, any of which can cause secondary explosions in stored ammunition," a primer on the weapons for U.S. Marine and Navy medics reads. 'THE DUST AND THE ASHES COVERED EVERYTHING' That primer was written years after the Persian Gulf War, when a young soldier named Matt Rohman from York County - along with hundreds of other combat engineers - were handed the job of emasculating Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's military in the 1991 war. After the fighting stopped, U.S. military commanders knew that they'd have only a short time before they'd be ordered back to their barracks. They wanted to make sure that none of the munitions, tanks or vehicles they'd encountered could be used again by Saddam, whether those objects be intact or partly destroyed. So combat engineers like Rohman spent months speeding across the desert, rounding up things to blow up. They quickly came to recognize those struck by depleted uranium (as opposed to other weapons) by the small holes in the pierced armor. That and the dust were usually the only visible evidence of why the vehicles had exploded in fire, Rohman says. No one ever mentioned that the dust might be dangerous. Now Rohman, 40, is one of the thousands of Gulf War vets who are disabled by various maladies, including muscle and neurological problems, stomach disorders, and extreme pains in his head and joints. His medical problems began within weeks of his return from the war in 1991, and government and civilian medical doctors can't explain what caused them. He's been unable to work since 1997. Like many of the sick veterans from that war, there were many possible hazards to choose from. Life in the desert was hard, hot and dirty, Rohman says. A mixture of sand, depleted uranium dust and soot from continuing oil well fires in the area coated everything, including his skin, uniform and often his food. "For over 30 days, we did not wash and clean," Rohman wrote in a sworn affidavit in 1998, in an attempt to get veterans benefits after he'd been deemed physically unable to work at any job. "I stayed in the same uniform through our march, and usually, I was so dirty from the air, ashes and dust that I could not be identified. The dust and ashes covered everything on me and around us. We could not escape it." The dust and dirt was on their food, too, he says, and it was impossible to get it all out of your mouth. Rohman spent nearly four months that way, his military records show. FIRST, ROHMAN LOST HIS TEETH, AND THEN HE LOST HIS HEALTH Shortly after the war, Rohman's teeth started coming out. Military dentists yanked nine teeth in Germany before they sent him home. His records show the Army gave him an early honorable discharge and a 20 percent disability because of a knee injury that he'd suffered in the early days of the war, scrambling into an armored car during a missile attack on his outfit. By 1993, nearly all the other teeth were gone, he says. By then, he was going to Naval Medical Center Portsmouth for treatment. "The doctor over at Portsmouth told me that the only way they could all go that quick was if they'd come in contact with radiation," Rohman says. Losing teeth like that didn't run in his family, he adds. Before the war, "I didn't have a cavity." Rohman says the doctor at Portsmouth asked him whether he'd been exposed to radioactive materials. Rohman says he didn't know about depleted uranium back then, so he told the dentist that he didn't know. By the time Rohman learned that the black dust was mildly radioactive, all his teeth were gone, he had severe nerve damage in his hands and feet, almost daily migraine headaches and breathing problems, among other ailments. His lawyer filed in 1998 to get the dental and other records from the Naval Medical Center to help Rohman's claims for benefits. But the hospital sent a form letter, saying it had no records at all of Rohman being seen there for anything. Rohman has a stack of copies of medical records from Portsmouth, verifying visits and treatments there. But he has only some of his records, and none of the ones that he got and kept were for the dental work. He says the dentist who treated him wanted to put something about possible service-related exposure to radioactivity on one record but was overruled by a supervisor. He also says he saw some of his records shredded during one of his visits, but doesn't know what those papers contained. Now, Rohman says, he realizes that he might have been eating small bits of depleted uranium, and with the poor sanitation available, those bits of dust were stuck on and between his teeth for days and weeks. What he swallowed wasn't a big problem. Scientists know that nearly all the uranium that's swallowed passes through the intestines quickly, is excreted and causes no danger. What stayed in his mouth for a while is another matter. Rapid loss of teeth is a common result of direct radiation to the mouth and jaw from medical treatments or other sources, if preventive measures aren't taken, according to medical journals. Radiation affects the saliva glands, which in turn can't perform the natural cleansing that helps keep teeth and gums healthy and free of germs. There's also the danger of tissue damage to the gums from direct contact with radiation sources. When gums get weak, teeth fall out. While in the desert with the 3rd Armored Division, constantly on the move to collect and destroy all that hardware, there were days at a time when there was limited drinking water. Rohman recalls that everyone's mouth was dry and that brushing your teeth was out of the question. According to data compiled by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, loose teeth and gum problems are common among veterans of the Persian Gulf War. The American Legion also did a survey of members who'd been to the gulf during the war and found the same thing. But that survey was never handled as a scientific survey, says Steve Smithson, director of the legion's veterans affairs and rehabilitation division. Dental problems aren't on the list of typical Gulf War illnesses compiled by researchers and the Veterans Affairs Department, however. Mohamed B. Abou-Donia, a professor of pharmacology and cancer biology at Duke University, led a review of medical and scientific data on depleted uranium that was published this year. He says that he found no evidence of references to dental problems but that it might simply be one of many gaps in our knowledge about the veterans' health problems. THE PROBLEM GOES PUBLIC WITH A 1998 STATEMENT One of the big obstacles to figuring out the cause of these illnesses is the government's failure to accurately survey all those who served and to compare their experiences, Abou-Donia and other researchers say. If that data is ever collected, they say, they might gain many insights into the veterans' health problems and the causes. Given the circumstances that veterans like Rohman were working in during and after the war, "the teeth part could be related very directly to the depleted uranium," Abou-Donia says. He says it's also possible that few veterans got as high a dose as Rohman. At the time that Rohman says he got dental exams at Portsmouth, allegations of hazards from depleted uranium's use on the battlefield hadn't become known yet outside the group of people who develop weaponry for the military. Not until 1998 did the U.S. government publicly acknowledge that it shouldn't have let Rohman and hundreds of others work closely with the vehicles and other objects struck by those weapons without wearing masks or suits to protect them. The first government official appointed to oversee research on the cause of the veterans' health problems issued this statement: "Combat troops or those working in support generally did not know that DU-contaminated equipment, such as enemy vehicles struck by DU rounds, required special handling. The failure to properly disseminate such information to troops at all levels may have resulted in thousands of unnecessary exposures." The statement occurred after veterans' groups, members of Congress and others successfully pushed the Pentagon to admit that the illnesses suffered by the men and women who'd fought the war weren't simply the result of too much stress. It also occurred as government officials began to acknowledge that there was a significant problem that had to be addressed. CONCERNS WERE DOCUMENTED DURING THE 1980s The government and military were backpedaling in many areas. Within months, Pentagon and CIA officials acknowledged that earlier statements dismissing the presence of nerve gas and other toxins on the battlefield were erroneous and that there were widespread incidents that could have affected troops during the war and its aftermath. By the time that a presidential assistant acknowledged the failure to warn troops about the dangers of depleted uranium, the Army had issued a technical bulletin calling for troops in such situations to wear protective clothing, boots, and masks with filters to prevent breathing the dust. It called for them to be able to shower immediately afterward and remove any "contaminated clothing," not just after the day's work but "if feasible, at the site." The need to take those precautions wasn't a secret among the people who'd been working to develop the weapons more than a decade earlier. When Noble was part of a team evaluating depleted uranium weapons' ballistics in the 1970s, members examined the area with Geiger counters before entering areas where the projectiles hit targets, he says. Even after the Geiger counters showed low levels of radiation, his team wore protective suits and breather masks where the weapons hit, he says. They also took regular doses of aspirin because the drug was supposed to help cleanse their bodies of the toxins from the uranium and other chemicals that they worked with. Other military officials who helped develop depleted uranium weapons knew about the possible risk to soldiers' lungs and began trying to get a grasp on the problem a decade before the war. A study to figure out how much dust might be inhaled after a typical explosion - and what it would do once it got in the lungs and body - was conducted from 1981 to 1983 by the Air Force. Much of the work took place at the same New Mexico laboratory where rats now breathe uranium bits to test whether the uranium goes to their brains. The 1981-83 study by the Air Force was titled, "Preliminary Study of Uranium Oxide Dissolution in Simulated Lung Fluid." It tried to estimate how much radiation the lungs might be getting before the particles dissolved in the fluid and then into the bloodstream, where they would pose a possible toxicological danger to the kidneys and other parts of the body but also would be flushed out of the body in urine. The study pointed out lots of pitfalls that future researchers would run into while trying to settle the problem for good. It came to no firm conclusions about risks - in part because the uranium bits don't break down into predictable sizes and shapes. Much of the study resulted in educated guesses based on mathematical models. More work was needed, it said. Pentagon officials say the final reams of data on that topic were collected and published this year. Their five-year $6 million study involved shooting real depleted uranium weapons into a real tank, real tank hulls and turrets, and a real Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The depleted uranium dust that resulted was caught in filters, weighed, analyzed and soaked in simulated lung fluid to see how long it would take to dissolve halfway. For most of the particles, it took more than 100 days, which means there would be some mildly radioactive dust in the lungs or lymph nodes for years. The study said the smallest particles took the longest time to dissolve halfway. But it calculated that because they were so small, there shouldn't be a significant health risk from inhaling those particles, based on industrial standards for nuclear workers and government-approved standards for uranium intake. Soldiers like Rohman, who weren't in a tank hit with one of the weapons, would be able to enter hundreds to thousands of vehicles covered with the dust before reaching the threshold of risk, according to the study. The military not only dismisses the risk, it dismisses the statements of thousands of troops who say they were exposed. HOW MANY INHALED? NO ONE REALLY KNOWS Officially, the Pentagon says only a few hundred troops were involved in potentially dangerous duty involving depleted uranium in the 1991 war. Veterans and many researchers disagree. There might have been relatively few soldiers like Rohman officially assigned to work in and on the damaged tanks and other vehicles struck with depleted uranium, they say, but tens of thousands of others were likely exposed. Once the fighting stopped, just about anyone who came near a tank or other vehicle hit by depleted uranium scrambled over and into what was left to take a look. According to congressional testimony in 1997, a survey of more than 10,000 Gulf War vets showed that 85 percent of them had entered captured Iraqi vehicles. The reasons were many, ranging from official duties to getting their pictures taken or simply to satisfy curiosity. Some vehicles hit by depleted uranium were hauled back to areas far behind the combat zone for possible return to the United States. The depleted uranium dust came with them. According to a report to Congress by the Army Environmental Policy Institute, 19 U.S. tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles contaminated with depleted uranium dust were hauled back to King Khalid Military City in Saudi Arabia, far from the combat zone. The city was a central collection point for service personnel, media and others going to and from various parts of the war. The unit responsible for disposing those vehicles didn't know about the hazards of the contamination and stored them "in a recovery yard without controlled access," according to the institute's report. The contaminated vehicles were there for three weeks before proper precautions were taken, the report says. Tradition also might have played a part in spreading the black dust. Souvenirs - including parts from Iraqi tanks that had been hit by depleted uranium - were taken home in the bags and baggage of soldiers and units, the institute's report says. There were even attempts to bring back entire pieces of equipment as battle trophies. When officials caught on to what was happening, some of the larger items were screened, and at least three Iraqi vehicles that units hoped to take home with them were found to be contaminated with depleted uranium and rejected for shipment, the institute's report says. Items brought home without previous screening through official channels "may contain hazardous materials," the Army report says. There's no official count of how often pieces of metal, clothing or other items with black depleted uranium dust came home to soldiers' barracks, homes and families. Military officials say it's extremely unlikely that anyone who came in contact with depleted uranium dust under such circumstances would become sick from it. Soldiers in those situations just didn't get a big enough dose, they say. The same is true about soldiers who might have inhaled some depleted uranium dust well after the end of a tank battle, they add. That's because the documented cases of uranium poisoning in uranium millers and miners studied over the years show that exposures thousands of times greater than what could reasonably be inhaled in those scenarios must occur to cause the body harm, says Michael J. Kilpatrick, the Pentagon's doctor responsible for looking after the health of troops sent overseas. WHAT'S A SAFE DISTANCE FROM DEPLETED URANIUM? Anyone who stays at least 50 meters (165 feet) away from where depleted uranium struck an object has no risk of ill health from exposure, says one of the Pentagon's leading experts on the health effects of the weapons - Lt. Col. Mark Melanson, health physics program manager for the Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine. "Most of it settles out within 50 meters of the vehicle" that's been hit, he says. "Is it possible for a single atom of depleted uranium to carry beyond 50 meters? Yes. Is it a significant health risk? No." Studies have found big differences regarding how much breathable dust depleted uranium weapons produce after they hit a target - and how far they might spread. The Army Environmental Policy Institute told Congress that the available research showed that anywhere from 18 percent to 70 percent of a depleted uranium projectile turns into breathable dust as it hits a target. It said 90 percent of the airborne depleted uranium would land within 50 meters of the explosion, in part because the dust is so heavy. But it also said that the dust particles that went beyond the 50-meter mark were generally all small enough to breathe in. Scientists say those are potentially the most dangerous. The environmental institute's report didn't go into how far the dust could go and what it would do in the heavy, sandstorm-driven winds of the Persian Gulf region. Much less how easily it could be kicked up by a moving truck or tank, then carried by one of those sandstorms. Melanson said later studies by the Army established the 50-meter standard. The United States fired the most depleted uranium in the Gulf War, but the British and other allies used it too. And breathed the air. Since then, veterans in those countries have demanded to know why they're so sick. The Royal Military College of Canada conducted its own testing after complaints by veterans. The publicly released version of its report didn't give a fixed distance from the site of an explosion, but it agreed that "at any distance from contaminated vehicles," the concentration of depleted uranium dust in the air "would be diluted to safe levels." It also found that 91 percent to 96 percent of the bits of dust left after an explosion "are easily respirable," and that "these particles can remain in the air for a significant period of time (hours to days), most of which will remain inside the target vehicles, but with some likely to escape into the atmosphere through open hatches or remain outside the target." Studies by the U.S., Canadian and Australian militaries found that though relatively heavy, depleted uranium dust particles are again suspended into the air when disturbed by vehicles, foot traffic or winds. DETECTING ITS PRESENCE WITH A MASS SPECTROMETER For much of the past 25 years, Leonard Dietz has been contemplating how far inhalable bits of depleted uranium can fly and how to detect it in the air and in soldiers' bodies. Dietz - a retired physicist in Schenectady, N.Y. - worked at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, where General Electric did nuclear work for the Navy and the U.S. government years before the 1991 war. Dietz's primary expertise involves a device called a mass spectrometer. A mass spectrometer is used to analyze samples of unknown substances to figure out what they're made of. Dietz patented a device built into mass spectrometers that's used to identify radioactive objects such as uranium and plutonium. He designed and built three mass spectrometers used to analyze uranium, plutonium and other elements. General Electric had to monitor the air at the plant where Dietz worked. It also had to monitor the air around the perimeter of the plant's grounds to make sure that none of the substances it was using were escaping, Dietz says. One of his jobs was to figure out what was in the air filters to prove that his employer wasn't polluting. The plant where he worked didn't use depleted uranium. But in 1979, all 16 filters caught tiny bits of depleted uranium - small enough that a human could inhale them, Dietz says. "Every single filter contained depleted uranium." Dietz said, so they knew it wasn't a fluke. Dietz and his co-workers finally figured out that the particles were coming from a plant in Albany, N.Y., making depleted uranium weapons for the Air Force. The plant's smokestack was 26 miles from some of the filters, he says. State and federal regulators caught on to the problem about the same time. They closed the plant, and since 1984, the U.S. government has been spending millions of dollars a year to remove the dangerous remnants of uranium. The cleanup includes removing the top layer of soil from properties in a radius of about two-thirds of a mile from the plant, says James T. Moore of the Army Corps of Engineers, who's supervising the project. The soil was removed because it contained unacceptable quantities of small pieces of depleted uranium, small enough to be inhaled. Two-thirds of a mile is more than 1,000 meters, or a kilometer. In all, 53 nearby properties required soil removal. They included property in nearby Colonie, N.Y., and some railroad property, all of which "contain residual radioactive and chemical constituents above federal and state guidelines," according to a status report on the work by the Corps of Engineers. Dietz says the 26-mile mark just happened to be where three of his filters were. They were the farthest from the plant where the depleted uranium weapons were made. He says his calculations show that while the contamination from the plant near Colonie came from a high smokestack, similar heights could easily be reached by depleted uranium dust particles rising from the heat and smoke of an exploding tank. He says he has no doubt that depleted uranium particles from the weapons plant went much farther than 26 miles. Well-established laws of physics show that despite their heavy weight, inhalable-sized particles can carry for miles, can be kicked up and resuspended in the air, and can travel farther, depending on their shape, wind speed and other factors, he says. Naturally occurring electrostatic charges would also cause them to cling to other dust particles that are even more aerodynamic, he says. That would enable them to carry even further. "They have an unlimited range," he says. "They can go anywhere dust goes." Dietz wrote a technical paper for General Electric to document his findings on the airborne depleted uranium from the weapons plant. He retired a short time later but keeps following the trail of depleted uranium dust. In 1995, a Kuwaiti scientist, Firyal Bou-Rabee, published a paper on possible contamination of Kuwait's soil, air and water in the international journal Applied Radiation Isotopes. The Pentagon's Web site on depleted uranium cites the scientist's research to demonstrate that the weapons' use there during the 1991 war didn't create undue radiological hazards in that nation. Bou-Rabee's samples did show that the uranium in the air was about twice what you'd expect to find, given the level of uranium in the soils. He attributed this to "the relatively small contribution of depleted uranium dispersed after the Gulf War." His research was financed by the Kuwaiti government - which, at the time, depended on the United States for its defense against Iraq. Like most scientific papers, the data was included so other scientists could evaluate his findings and conclusions. Dietz says he used that data to compute how much depleted uranium was in a 2,500-square-kilometer (1,000-square-mile) area where battles were fought during the war. The result, he says, was 10 metric tons of depleted uranium that had been added to the environment. THE ONLY POSSIBLE SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION IS WEAPONS There's no other source of the depleted uranium but the residue of the weapons, he says, because the characteristics of depleted uranium aren't replicated in nature and there are no other sources of the materials. Bou-Rabee and the Pentagon pointed to the same data to show that because the total uranium in the air and soil was below government-established safety limits, there's no problem. The U.S. government sent its own people with Geiger counters and other devices to measure the radioactivity of soils in Kuwait. The same thing was done in Bosnia and parts of the former Yugoslavia, where depleted uranium weapons were used by U.S. and British forces in peacekeeping operations after the Persian Gulf War. The U.S. government and the U.N. World Health Organization say their studies of the soils in those former battlefields show levels of radioactivity and uranium below what should cause alarm. That's because they're within what's called the "natural background" levels that you'd find ordinarily. Melanson says he's participated in some of that research, including the work to gather samples. He and other government officials say there's no health risk there, even though thousands of small and large depleted uranium projectiles that missed their targets remain buried in the soil, mostly from the Air Force's A-10 aircraft. Children often find the projectiles, play with them and carry them around. A World Health Organization evaluation of the problem said that wasn't a good idea but wasn't an immediate health threat unless someone carried a projectile around for days or weeks. CALCULATED RISKS DEPEND ON THE CALCULATIONS USED Dietz says that he reviewed the data and methodology Melanson's lab used to produce these soil surveys and that the mass spectrometer it employed wasn't up to the job. He says it's incapable of accurately detecting depleted uranium in quantities of less than one part per million. That might sound like too small an amount to be concerned about, Dietz says, but when you're talking about particles measured in microns - one-millionth of a meter - it could mean a lot of uncounted depleted uranium. Measuring total radioactivity isn't the point anyway, Dietz and others say. That's because the natural background doesn't involve a high quantity of radioactive dust on the surface, blowing around in the air. Much of the uranium in nature is in the ground, buried, and not so susceptible to inhalation. There's plenty of natural uranium in Kuwait, but it wouldn't have the same health-threatening characteristics as the depleted uranium dust, Dietz and other scientists say. Naturally occurring uranium is dilute, locked up in sand and minerals. As a result, it would be relatively innocuous if inhaled. The depleted uranium dust, on the other hand, is concentrated and does not quickly dissolve. Once it gets into the lungs, even the smaller pieces last for years - which means the alpha radiation that they exude will be banging on nearby lung and lymph-node tissue, causing possible damage. Melanson says even if that's true, the total dose of uranium from these little pieces isn't enough to get close to the government's accepted standards for safe peacetime dosages. Scientists who think more research is needed say the standards that the Pentagon used for even its most recent calculations don't take into account the latest research. The standards used in the most recent government study, published this fall, were adopted in the 1970s. The Capstone Study made no attempt to explore what might be the additional risk if the "bystander effect" of depleted uranium on nearby human cells is taken into account. Dietz and other critics of the weapons say that even if the ultimate level of radioactivity isn't alarmingly high, it doesn't mean that the war and use of the weapons didn't increase the health risks. The natural-background uranium level set by government agencies is merely a range of measurements taken in various places. Colorado and Florida, for instance, have higher natural background levels than Virginia, overall. So it's a measurement of what exists, critics of depleted uranium weapons say - not necessarily what's safe. Risk and safety in warfare are difficult to measure, Melanson says. Compared with the other risks on a battlefield and the alternative of not using depleted uranium weapons, inhaling the amount of dust that's likely simply isn't a significant factor, he says. The normal risk of fatal lung cancer for all males in the United States is 23.6 percent. Smoking raises that to nearly 31 percent, he says. But according to the measurements and calculations in the Capstone Study, even the maximum dose of inhaled depleted uranium increases the risk less than 1 percent. -------- iran British FM presses Iran to respect nuclear freeze, Iran says research exempt BRUSSELS (AFP) Dec 13, 2004 http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041213170642.qicutl8u.html Britain insisted Monday that Iran respect a full freeze of uranium enrichment, but Tehran sought exceptions for research purposes during talks with the European Union on confidence measures to show it is not making nuclear weapons. Each side must accept "both the spirit as well as the letter" of a November 7 agreement, reached in Paris, under which Iran pledged to suspend all uranium enrichment activities, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told reporters. Straw, along with German and French foreign ministers Joschka Fischer and Michel Barnier, as well as EU foreign affairs chief Javier Solana, met with top Iranian nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani to discuss the Paris agreement, EU officials said. The accord, endorsed by the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), promises Tehran trade, technology and security rewards in return for fully suspending enrichment, a crucial fuel-making process that can also be used to make atomic weapons. Diplomats said the talks could not succeed unless Washington eventually took part, since Iran could not join the World Trade Organization (WTO), for example, or receive regional security guarantees without US support. The United States, which charges that Iran is using the Paris agreement to gain time to enable it to secretly develop nuclear weapons, has not yet supported the EU initiative with Iran but is not opposing it. The EU negotiators from Britain, France and Germany had refused at an IAEA meeting in Vienna last month to let Iran withhold 20 centrifuges -- the machines that enrich uranium -- from the freeze in order to do research, saying the halt must be total and involve all related enrichment activities. The Iranian demand had threatened to scupper the agreement. "We'll be discussing ... the full implementation of the Paris agreement," Straw said, adding: "The words of the Paris agreement mean what they say." But in Tehran, government spokesman Abdollah Ramazanzadeh said Iran was sticking to its demand that 20 centrifuges be excluded. "The question of halting research is not on the agenda," he said. Straw said the European trio and Iran would be setting up "three working groups to take forward the Paris agreement." The working groups cover incentives Iran is to be offered over the long term. One group is in technology, economics and cooperation, another in nuclear issues and a third in politics and security, diplomats said. In return for "objective guarantees" that it will not develop the bomb, Iran has been offered incentives such as help in joining the WTO and in obtaining a light water research reactor. Tehran would in turn abandon plans to build a heavy water reactor that would be more capable of producing bomb-grade material. The working groups were to meet later Monday at the Iranian embassy after the ministers' meeting, an EU official said, adding that Iranian-EU discussions on a trade and cooperation agreement would probably take place in January. "This process is going to take off today," a senior European diplomat told AFP, adding that it would take "a bit longer" than the three-month deadline the Iranians have set. The road is fraught with difficulties since Iran says its suspension of uranium enrichment is a temporary measure designed to show its intentions are peaceful, while the EU negotiators want it to become permanent, diplomats said. The IAEA has been investigating Iran's nuclear programme for almost two years. Iran said Sunday that it was not prepared to accept a permanent freeze as it claims it has the right to enrich uranium under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Rowhani warned that the Islamic republic would abandon the talks, and the suspension, in the absence of meaningful progress. The IAEA had on November 29 decided against referring Iran to the UN Security Council for threatened sanctions, as the United States wants, after Tehran agreed on the suspension. In a sign of continuing concern about Iran's intentions, diplomats said last week that the Islamic Republic was conducting secret high-energy neutron experiments, allegedly taking place under military supervision, that could be destined for civilian purposes or aimed at making nuclear weapons. ----- Iran nuclear chief hails 'new chapter' with Europe after talks BRUSSELS (AFP) Dec 13, 2004 http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041213200537.6ltuql43.html Iran's top nuclear official Hassan Rowhani hailed Monday a "new chapter" in relations between Tehran and Europe, after talks with key EU ministers on rewards Iran is to receive for suspending uranium enrichment to show it is not making atomic weapons. Rowhani, speaking after talks with the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Britain, said he hoped the negotiations "can be indicative of a new chapter in our relations not only with the three European countries but with Europe as a whole." British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said: "We are now able to move forward to the next phase," confirming that working groups of officials from both sides would pursue talks starting immediately. "We are all committed to the successful outcome of the process which began in Iran 14 months ago," when Tehran first reached agreement with the so-called EU3 on its uranium enrichment activities, an accord that had faltered due to bickering over whether all support activites such as making centrifuges were included. Uranium is enriched by centrifuges into fuel for civilian nuclear reactors but also what in highly refined form can be the explosive core of atomic bombs. Straw said a key purpose of the talks would be to determine "that Iran's nuclear program can only be used for peaceful purposes." Under an agreement struck last month in Paris, Iran pledged to suspend all enrichment activities, in return for promises of trade, technology and security rewards, the topics of the three working groups. The United States charges that Iran is using the Paris agreement to gain time to enable it to secretly develop nuclear weapons and would like to see Tehran brought before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. But Washington is giving the EU initiative a chance, even though it does not back it. Diplomats said the talks could not succeed unless Washington eventually takes part, since Iran could not join the World Trade Organization (WTO), for example, or receive regional security guarantees without US support. Iran wants rapid progress. Tehran will be assigning a minister to each of the three working groups as "a sign that they want the process to move quickly," a diplomat close to the talks said. The diplomat said Rowhani had told the European trio that a three-month deadline, after which the working groups are to file reports, was very important for Iran as "time is of the essence" for them. But "substance is of the essence," for the Europeans, the diplomat said. Rowhani had warned before leaving Tehran for Brussels that the Islamic republic would abandon the talks, and the suspension, in the absence of meaningful progress. Rowhani meanwhile played down comments from Tehran that Iran was seeking exemptions from the suspension in order to use centrifuges for research when he said: "The purpose of the suspension is to create a new atmosphere through which we can have serious negotiations with our Europen partners." The European trio had refused at a meeting in Vienna last month of the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to let Iran withhold 20 centrifuges from the freeze in order to do research, saying the halt must be total and involve all related enrichment activities. The Iranian demand had threatened to scupper the agreement. But in Tehran, government spokesman Abdollah Ramazanzadeh said Monday that Iran was sticking to its demand that 20 centrifuges be excluded as "halting research is not on the agenda." The working groups cover incentives Iran is to be offered over the long term. One group is in technology, economics and cooperation, another in nuclear issues and a third in politics and security, diplomats said. In return for "objective guarantees" that it will not develop the bomb, Iran has been offered incentives such as help in joining the WTO and in obtaining a light water research reactor. Tehran would in turn abandon plans to build a heavy water reactor that would be more capable of producing bomb-grade material. The IAEA has been investigating Iran's nuclear programme for almost two years. In a sign of continuing concern about Iran's intentions, diplomats said last week that the Islamic Republic was conducting secret high-energy neutron experiments, allegedly taking place under military supervision, that could be destined for civilian purposes or aimed at making nuclear weapons. -------- missile defense THEODORE A. POSTOL: MIT's role in missile test fraud By Theodore A. Postol | December 13, 2004 NY Post http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/12/13/mits_role_in_missile_test_fraud?mode=PF AFTER MORE than 3 1/2 years of foot-dragging, excuses, and violations of federal regulations, MIT announced last week that it could not investigate credible evidence of possible scientific fraud in fundamental National Missile Defense research being done at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory. The reason outgoing president Charles M. Vest gave is that the Pentagon had classified everything about the investigation. If the particular allegations of fraud have merit -- and I believe they do -- MIT and the Pentagon have been involved in a fraud that has promoted a weapon system that will have little or no utility and could cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Of even greater importance, millions of lives could be lost if this weapon system failed to defend our nation from a nuclear ballistic missile attack. The allegations of fraud involve the critically important Integrated Flight Test 1A, or IFT-1A, in June 1997. Its purpose was to determine if the currently deployed National Missile Defense could tell the difference between warheads flying through space and simple balloons designed to look like warheads. If the IFT-1A experiment could not demonstrate that the weapon could perform this task, the weapon could never have a realistic chance of working in combat. In May 2000 I sent evidence to the White House that, despite the claims of unqualified success by the Pentagon, the IFT-1A had in fact been a total failure. Initially, the Pentagon claimed that the letter I wrote to the White House was secret. Then the Pentagon reversed itself and claimed that the experiment was old and irrelevant, and then it reinforced this claim by arguing that it now uses a slightly different sensor that renders the results of the IFT-1A irrelevant. Finally, after trying for years to dismiss the relevance of the IFT-1A, the Pentagon has again reversed itself and claims that the release of any and all information about it would cause grave, direct, and immediate harm to the national security. In subsequent work, I learned that the document that had led me to warn the White House about fraud in the National Missile defense program had been produced for the Pentagon by MIT's Lincoln Laboratory. The Lincoln Laboratory report was written in 1998 for federal agents from the departments of Justice and Defense. The agents had come to MIT for help in evaluating evidence they had collected that indicated researchers at TRW might have fraudulently tampered with data to make the IFT-1A test look like a success when it had in fact failed. Since Lincoln Laboratory had been deeply involved in early analysis of the IFT-1A, and has special national status as a federally funded research and development center, it was in a unique position to evaluate all the evidence uncovered by the federal agents. In April 2001, I began a process of alerting MIT's then-president Charles M. Vest and his provost, Robert Brown, that MIT's Lincoln Laboratory had failed to cooperate with the federal agents and had withheld critical information that the sensor in the IFT-1A had not performed as designed. Since the sensor did not collect valid data, the experiment was a total failure and fraud had occurred at TRW. Of even greater concern, it was clear from documents created shortly after the IFT-1A in 1997 and General Accountability Office reports published in March 2002 that Lincoln Laboratory was fully aware of the failure of the sensor. MIT's response during this period was at first to deny that it had oversight responsibilities for the report, then, in July 2002, to produce an interim inquiry report, reviewed by MIT's lawyers, that praised the work done by Lincoln and concluded: "The good news is that the management and culture of the Lincoln Laboratory . . . have created processes to insure that the nation's trust is protected." Four months later the conclusions of the interim inquiry report were completely reversed and an investigation recommended. It is this investigation which MIT now says it cannot pursue because material is classified. In fact the investigation can be fully accomplished with material already made public. The mishandling of this affair by MIT poses threats to the integrity and credibility of all university-based research in this country. MIT's continuing excuses for not investigating this matter and its attempts to evade its responsibilities represent a serious violation of the public trust and the most basic principles of academic integrity. But of far more importance than the future of MIT, it does a disservice to our system of government and undermines the defense of our country. Theodore A. Postol is professor of science, technology, and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. -------- russia Renewal of deal to help secure Russian arms in doubt USA TODAY By Peter Eisler, 12/13/2004 http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-12-13-inside-nuke-russia_x.htm WASHINGTON — This was to be the year that Russia began getting tens of millions of dollars in U.S. assistance to build a plant to convert 34 tons of plutonium into fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. But not a dime of the $50 million Congress set aside to start construction has been spent. In 2002, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham called the project "central to enhancing our national security" in a post-Sept. 11 world. But construction of the plant, a pillar of U.S. efforts to help Russia protect and destroy nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, has been stalled for years, largely because of a dispute on how much liability the U.S. government and its workers would bear in any accident. The dispute is one of several slowing U.S. efforts to help Russia deal with surplus arms. The work is done under Defense and Energy department programs that provide U.S. money to help former Soviet states protect and eliminate weapons of mass destruction. "We need to get rid of these weapons in Russia ... (and) these problems are frustrating us," says Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind. The bilateral agreement authorizing the programs expires in 2006. And disputes on liability and other issues threaten its renewal. "Without (a new pact), I think all of our programs would have to stop," says Paul Longsworth of the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration. "Obviously, we're concerned if we don't get resolution soon." But renewal talks haven't begun. The programs were born in 1991, after the Soviet Union's collapse. Several of the emerging states inherited nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the United States feared the arms could reach rogue nations or terrorists. The programs, spending about $1 billion a year, have destroyed thousands of nuclear warheads, missiles and submarines, and big stocks of chemical and biological agents. But they're controversial. "On (the U.S.) side, there are people who say the Russians are cheating, they just want the money," says Vladimir Rybachenkov, counselor at the Russian Embassy. "On our side, there are some who say the Americans just want to get their noses into our" military sites. The Pentagon's inspector general has cited several projects as wasteful. In one case, the Pentagon spent $100 million to build Russia a plant to destroy fuel from nuclear missiles. After it was built, Russia said it was using the fuel for commercial rockets. So the plant is idle. Russia also has yet to use a high-security nuclear materials storage facility built with about $400 million in U.S. money. At issue is what material it will hold — and how the United States can verify that it won't store fuel for new weapons. The Pentagon now wants binding agreements with Russia on how U.S. assistance will be used. But the pacts can take months to reach. Other causes for delay: •Access. Russia has refused U.S. demands to enter several nuclear, biological and chemical sites where security is in doubt. The resistance is mainly from Russia's internal security force. The Pentagon refuses assistance unless its program managers can visit a site to verify that money isn't misspent. But Russian officials say some access demands exceed what they allow. "There are technical means to verify (work) ... without what we call 'intrusion,' " Rybachenkov says. Access snags also have slowed an Energy Department push to upgrade security at Russian sites holding 600 tons of nuclear weapons material. Russian and U.S. officials are in talks on the problem, and the department forecasts increases in its rate of installing safeguards. But even if it moves at unprecedented speed, it will miss a goal for completion in 2008. •Funding. Congress has put conditions on the release of money for several projects, especially those aimed at securing Russia's chemical and biological weapons. The conditions require the administration to "certify" that Russia is meeting a host of criteria, such as disclosing data on its chemical and biological stockpiles, or improving its record on human rights. The rules stymied construction of a Russian plant to destroy thousands of tons of chemical munitions. At Lugar's urging, Congress gave President Bush authority last year to waive certification, but the plant now is years off schedule. •Liability. The impasse on the plutonium-conversion program centers on a U.S. insistence that any work agreement include 100% liability protection for its agencies and workers, even for individual acts of sabotage. That language is in the current agreement on U.S.-Russian cooperation, but the plutonium program isn't covered. And Russia's legislature has passed a law barring similar language if the pact is renewed. -------- u.n. What El Baradei Said Antiwar.com by Gordon Prather December 13, 2004 http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=4153 David Sanger – a New York Times reporter – has actually visited the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna and interviewed its director general, Mohamed ElBaradei. Sanger's resulting report – entitled "When a Virtual Bomb May Be Better Than the Real Thing" – appeared last Sunday. Until now, Sanger and other media sycophants have been uncritically accepting neocon misinformation about nuclear programs – past and present – in Iraq, Iran and North Korea. The neocons had President Bush say this about Iraq, Iran, and North Korea in his 2002 State of the Union Address: "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. "We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." Nine months later, Bush went to Congress seeking "specific statutory authorization" to invade Iraq. He based his request upon a highly-classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that supposedly "proved" that Saddam was reconstructing his nuke and chem-bio weapons programs, with the intention of supplying those weapons to Islamic terrorists for use against us. That NIE turned out to be a neocon con job. Nevertheless, "The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." But there was a catch. Before resorting to force, Bush had to satisfy Congress that "reliance on peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security of the United States." That meant Bush had to give UN inspectors an opportunity to do a go-anywhere, see-anything search of Iraq to see if a resort to force was necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein. By mid-March of 2003, the UN inspectors had reported back to the Security Council that Saddam had made no attempt to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction programs since 1991 and had effectively been disarmed since at least 1998. Hence, it must have been absolutely stupefying to Iran and North Korea when Dubya "determined" on March 19 that no "further diplomatic or other peaceful means will adequately protect the national security of the United States from the continuing threat posed by Iraq." And he invaded Iraq the next day. Bush had unilaterally abrogated – just after he went to Congress to ask for authority to invade Iraq – the so-called Agreed Framework verified by the IAEA, wherein North Korea froze all nuclear reactors and related facilities. So, North Korea had withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, ejected IAEA personnel, and restarted its plutonium-producing nuclear reactor. Immediately after Bush invaded Iraq, North Korea announced it was chemically recovering the weapons-grade plutonium already produced. Enough for five or six nukes, according to U.S. intelligence estimates. Now, there can be no question that ElBaradei was right about Iraq. But what about Iran? Well, after more than 20 months of go-anywhere, see-anything searching, ElBaradei has found no indication that Iran has – or ever had – a nuclear weapons program. But the neocons claim that Iran's having the capability to enrich uranium is tantamount to Iran's having nukes. That's nonsense, of course. Iran's having the capability to enrich uranium is not even tantamount to having the capability to produce the essentially pure uranium-235 required to make a nuke. And even if Iran did have the capability and had somehow managed to secretly produce a few hundred pounds of uranium-235, that wouldn't be tantamount to actually having nukes, either. Especially implosion-type nukes. However, it has been widely reported that ElBaradei told Sanger that having the capability was tantamount. ElBaradei didn't. When asked whether he thought North Korea had actually made five or six nukes with their weapons-grade plutonium or not, ElBaradei asked, "What's the difference?" What ElBaradei meant was that, in his opinion, there is very little difference in the deterrent value of real nukes and virtual nukes. He's wrong about that, of course. So are the neocons. ----- The Revolt Against the Bush Administration's Nuclear Double Standard hnn.us By Lawrence S. Wittner 12-13-04 http://hnn.us/articles/8996.html In late November, when Congress refused to appropriate money to fund so-called "bunker busters" and "mini-nukes," this action represented not only a serious blow to the Bush administration's plan to build new nuclear weapons, but to the administration's overall nuclear arms control and disarmament policy. That policy has been to prevent the development of nuclear weapons by nations the Bush administration considers "evil." The military invasion of Iraq, like the gathering confrontation with Iran and North Korea, reflects, at least in part, the administration's obsession with preventing nations potentially hostile to the United States from acquiring a nuclear capability. This focus upon blocking nuclear weapons development in other countries has some legal justification for, in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968, non-nuclear nations agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. But the NPT also calls for nuclear nations to rid themselves of the nuclear weapons they possess. Indeed, in the meetings that fashioned the treaty, the non-nuclear weapons states demanded a commitment to nuclear disarmament by the nuclear powers. And they received it -- not only in the form of the treaty's provisions, but in the formal pledges made by the nuclear powers at the periodic treaty review conferences that have been held since the NPT went into effect. It is in this area that the Bush administration has revealed itself as the proponent of a double standard. At the same time that it has assailed selected nations for developing nuclear weapons, it has withdrawn the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, effectively destroyed the START II treaty, and refused to support ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It has also raised the U.S. nuclear weapons budget to new heights and proposed the building of new U.S. nuclear weapons, including the "bunker busters" and "mini-nukes." As Senator Kerry pointed out during the recent presidential campaign, this is not the kind of policy that will encourage other nations to abide by their commitments under the NPT. The surprising congressional move to block the Bush plan for new nuclear weapons is but one of numerous signs that this double standard cannot be sustained. As a special high-level U.N. panel has just warned: "We are approaching a point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation." Nor is the breakaway from the NPT limited to the non-nuclear nations. Just the other day the Russian government announced its development of a new nuclear missile. Appropriately enough, the U.N. panel condemned the nuclear powers for failing to honor their commitments, and called upon them to restart the nuclear disarmament process. Furthermore, of course, terrorists have been actively seeking nuclear weapons, and might well obtain them. Thousands of tactical nuclear weapons -- many of them small, portable, and, therefore, ideal for terrorist use -- are still maintained by the U.S. and Russian governments. No international agreements have ever been put into place to control or eliminate them. In fact, it remains unclear how many of these tactical nuclear weapons exist or where they are located. In Russia, at least, they are badly guarded and, in the disorderly circumstances of the post-Soviet economy, they seem ripe for sale or theft. The revolt against the Bush administration's double standard could come to a head in May 2005, when an NPT review conference opens at the United Nations, in New York City. Nuclear and non-nuclear nations are sure to exchange sharp barbs about non-compliance with NPT provisions. Furthermore, more than a hundred mayors from the Mayors for Peace Campaign, which has drawn together the top executives from 640 cities around the world, are expected to come to the U.N. to lobby for nuclear disarmament. They will be joined by United for Peace and Justice, the largest peace movement coalition in the United States, and over 2,000 organizations in 96 different countries. Together, they have launched Abolition Now, a campaign calling on heads of state to begin negotiations in 2005 on a treaty to eliminate all nuclear weapons. Ultimately, then, the Bush administration might be forced into accepting a single standard for dealing with the threat posed by nuclear weapons -- one designed to lead to a nuclear-free world. Certainly, there are plenty of signs that people and nations around the globe believe that what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. ----- White House mum on El Baradei eavesdropping report WASHINGTON (AFP) Dec 13, 2004 http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041213200024.qyyzkh0l.html The White House on Monday denied it sought to oust the head of the UN nuclear watchdog agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, and refused to comment on a news report that the United States had spied on him. But spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated US opposition to giving the Egyptian diplomat, 62, a third term at the helm of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) when his current term expires next year. "We remain committed to the agreement that was reached in Vienna, where heads of United Nations organizations should only serve two terms," he said. "Serve no more than two terms, I should say." That was a reference to the Geneva group of top 10 contributors to international organizations, which has held that heads of such agencies should not serve more than two terms. Asked about media reports that the United States has monitored telephone calls between ElBaradei and Iranian diplomats, seeking ammunition to oust him, McClellan declined to comment. "I've seen the reports. And I just don't get into discussing any of those reports. And that should not be read one way or the other," the spokesman told reporters. -------- u.s. nuc facilities Court Allows NRC to Hold Informal Public Hearings in Reactor Licensing Proceedings But Court Makes Clear That Challenges Can Be Made Public Citizen December 13, 2004 http://www.nirs.org/press/12-13-2004/1 WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) can hold informal public hearings during reactor licensing proceedings, but parties can file case-by-case challenges WHERE such procedures fall short of ensuring a fair hearing, the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston has ruled in a case filed by Public Citizen and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). Until the NRC modified its 10 C.F.R. Part 2 regulations last Feb. 13, the public had the right to full, on-the-record hearings in all reactor licensing proceedings. These hearings were similar to federal court trials, and included discovery and cross-examination of witnesses. On Feb. 20, Public Citizen and NIRS challenged these new "Part 2" regulations, charging that they violate the Atomic Energy Act by eliminating the right to these formal hearings in most agency adjudicatory proceedings. According to the court's decision, "Should the agency's administration of the new rules contradict its present representations or otherwise flout this principle [of full and true disclosure of the facts], nothing in this opinion will inoculate the rules against future challenges." "The court does not say that the NRC can scuttle the process required by federal law," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "In fact, the decision makes it clear that NRC must permit the necessary procedures, including cross-examination, for a fair hearing decision." The court upheld the NRC's ability to limit discovery and cross-examination, but rejected the idea that those can be eliminated, saying that "the Commission's new rules may approach the outer bounds of what is permissible" under the Administrative Procedures Act. "It is extremely unfortunate that the court agrees that the new rules could result in less information available to the public and that the NRC's explanation for limiting discovery is 'thin,' yet chose to give such a high degree of deference to the NRC," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of NIRS. "At the same time, the decision draws a line in the sand and prevents the NRC from distorting the public hearing process any further." The court stated that "the NRC came perilously close to violating [the Administrative Procedures Act] here, with [...] unfortunate consequences for efficient administrative process and effective appellate review." The court concluded, "There is a victory here for the NRC, but it should be a cause for self-examination rather than jubilation." Other petitioners in this case include Citizens Awareness Network and the National Whistleblower Center. Attorneys general from Massachusetts, New York, California, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Connecticut filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners. -------- vermont VY inspection details to be aired Thursday By Kathryn Casa | Vermont Guardian Posted December 13, 2004 http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/0904/VYInspection.shtml BRATTLEBORO — The public will have a chance to weigh in Thursday on a federal inspection that concludes that Vermont’s 30-year-old nuclear power plant can sustain a 20 percent upgrade to boost power output. The final report was issued Dec. 3, about three months after inspectors for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission completed a narrow engineering inspection of the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor in Vernon. Anti-nuclear watchdogs dismiss the inspection as too limited in scope, and tick off a list of what they see as potential problems related to a power increase. “They found eight problems that the company needs to repair, but they haven’t looked at the other 99 percent” of the plant, said Ray Shadis, technical advisor for the nuclear watchdog New England Coalition. “Overall, the team found that the components and systems reviewed would be capable of performing their intended safety functions and that sufficient design controls for engineering work have been implemented,” the NRC declared in its report. “However, the team identified eight findings of very low safety significance.” Vermont Yankee spokesman Rob Williams said the report “reinforces our confidence that our plant is well-suited to continue moving forward with our uprate initiative.” Vermont Yankee’s owner Entergy, the nation’s third-largest power generator, has asked both the NRC and the state Public Service Board for approval to increase power output at the plant to 120 percent of its existing 535-megawatt capacity. The state board agreed to a issue a required “certificate of public good” pending an inspection of the reactor. Vermont’s Senate also called for an inspection. The NRC has not yet issued a decision on the uprate. Earlier this year, it postponed an anticipated January 2005 decision on the proposal, citing concerns about cracks in the plant’s steam dryer. The agency has not denied any of the more than 100 uprate requests at nuclear power plants around the country, most of which are in the single-digit range. At 20 percent, Vermont Yankee’s would be the largest allowable. Among the problems found during the inspection, the NRC said it could take Vermont Yankee too long to activate an alternate power source in case of an outage, which is necessary to ensure the plant’s reactor is cooled. Entergy also has failed long-term to fix a control valve that supplies cooling water to a reactor core cooling system, the inspectors said, and plant officials have failed to ensure a constant temperature inside a condensate storage tank so that a backup water supply for cooling maintains the proper temperature. Williams said all of the problems “have been entered into our corrective action program for follow-up on each one.” The inspection report was released in its entirety last week. It is available online at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/plant-specific-items/vermont-yankee-issues/engineering-inspection.html. Both the engineering inspection and a separate NRC probe into misplaced spent fuel rods will be the subject of a public meeting on Thursday, starting at 6 p.m., at Brattleboro Union High School. NRC representatives will include Wayne Lanning, director of the NRC’s Region I Division of Reactor Safety; Jeff Jacobson, team leader for the engineering inspection; Todd Jackson, team leader for a separate inspection about a pair of fuel rods which Vermont Yankee misplaced last spring; and Cornelius Holden of the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations. The Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel (V-SNAP) will host the gathering, which replaces an NRC “exit meeting” originally scheduled for last month, where the agency planned to release to Vermont Yankee officials both the engineering inspection and the report on the misplaced fuel rods. “We think that this will be a good forum to hold a constructive meeting to get information out,” said NRC Region I spokeswoman Diane Screnci. She noted, however, that the purpose of Thursday’s meeting is to “talk about the engineering inspection and the spent fuel inspection and to take questions. It’s not to take public comment on the uprate.” The meeting is not a public hearing, Screnci said, and public comments will not be recorded as part of record on Vermont Yankee’s uprate application. However, she added, “Certainly if someone brought something up that we need to look at, we will.” An NRC meeting in March drew more than 600 people to the Vernon school, many of them angry and vocal about Vermont Yankee’s uprate plans. V-SNAP Chairman David O’Brien, who also heads the Vermont Department of Public Service, said he hopes to avoid that kind of emotional atmosphere on Thursday. “I want this to be as calm an event as possible to focus on the content of the information,” O’Brien said. “I will do everything in my power to make sure people get a chance to be heard and get the information from the NRC.” According to Shadis, two weeks — the time between when the report was released and Thursday’s meeting — doesn’t give the public enough time to review the document and develop informed questions. “Two weeks is not adequate time for the public to get a hold of the report, read it, consult with experts, and become informed enough on the contents to be able to ask informed questions. Even those of us that are advocates are going to have to scramble to sort out this report.” He said the full report should have been made public within a month of the inspection’s Sept. 5 completion, and the public should have been given 30 days to submit written comments and questions before a public meeting was scheduled. “The people of Vermont and the whole Connecticut River Valley need to understand that this is not a spectator sport. It is their health, their future, their property, their economy, their environment that is at stake, and it is their right to have this information open, clear, public, and provable.” Nuclear watchdogs complain that the Vermont Yankee inspection was far less thorough than inspections at other New England nuclear reactors, which revealed flaws that eventually led to the shutdown of those plants. “VY has managed to duck the bullet. … They managed to avoid getting a thorough examination,” Shadis charged. NRC officials said the process involved three weeks of onsite inspection and more than 700 hours of inspection time. Both the NEC and the state say Entergy’s uprate, as it is now proposed, would narrow the number and depth of the plant’s backup systems in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident. NEC is challenging Entergy’s bid for an exemption from testing how systems react to significant changes in conditions, such as pressure, water flow, and temperature. NEC also says Vermont Yankee’s cooling towers have not been sufficiently analyzed for their ability to withstand an earthquake. What inspectors found at Vermont Yankee During an engineering inspection at Vermont Yankee last summer, the NRC team identified the following problems: • VY failed to determine how long an alternative power source, the Vernon Hydro-Electric Station, would be unavailable during a blackout, and did not demonstrate how long it would take to make power from the hydro station available during a grid collapse. • VY failed to establish adequate procedures to determine the operability of a 115-kilovolt line designated as an alternate power source if the 345/115-kilovolt auto transformer is lost. • VY used incorrect and nonconservative voltage values in calculations designed to assure that electrical equipment would remain operable under low-voltage conditions. • A pressure control valve in the lube oil cooler water supply line was not independent of air systems, and the piping between the pressure control valve and lube oil cooler did not contain a restricting orifice. • VY failed to fix a pressure control valve which affects the ability to properly supply cooling flow to a lube oil cooler. • VY had neither established the correct condensate storage tank temperature limit for transient analyses nor translated the temperature limit into plant procedures. • From June 2001 to September 2004, VY did not adequately coordinate operations and engineering departments’ procedure revisions that increased the length of time required to place the reactor core isolation cooling system in service from the alternate shutdown panels. • VY conducted motor-operated valve tests using procedures that did not include acceptance limits, which were correlated to and based on applicable design documents. Additionally, the testing was conducted solely from the motor control centers using test instrumentation that had not been validated. -------- washington State issues permit for pilot project at Hanford THE ASSOCIATED PRESS December 13, 2004 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20Hanford%20Permit RICHLAND, Wash. -- The state Department of Ecology issued a permit Monday to the U.S. Department of Energy to build and operate a pilot plant for treating treat radioactive waste at the Hanford nuclear reservation. The permit allows for construction, operation and closure of a facility where bulk vitrification will be performed on radioactive waste stored in Hanford's 177 underground tanks. The process immobilizes the waste in glass blocks. The government already plans to use vitrification to turn the high-level waste in the tanks into glass logs for long-term disposal in a nuclear waste repository. Construction is under way on a nearly $6 billion plant to treat that waste. But that facility was not designed to treat less-radioactive waste also found in the tanks, and researchers have been studying bulk vitrification to treat that material. For bulk-vitrification, waste would be dried, mixed with silica-rich dirt and packed into insulated boxes up to 24 feet long. Electrodes inserted into the mixture would melt it into a huge brick of glass to be permanently buried - container and all. The permit issued Monday allows the Energy Department to test bulk vitrification on low-level waste. Conditions in the permit require the agency and its contractor, CH2M Hill, to operate the new facility in a way that protects human health and the environment, and to document the technology's effectiveness, the Ecology Department said. Hanford officials have been looking at bulk vitrification as a potentially less expensive way to immobilize 10 million to 26 million gallons of radioactive waste in glass for permanent disposal. The bulk-vitrification project is expected to cost $1.4 billion. It is hoped the technology will produce glass at a cost 35 percent less than the vitrification plant's low-level waste-treatment system -------- MILITARY China, Russia Will Hold First War Games Associated Press By JOE McDONALD Dec 13, 2004 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHINA_RUSSIA_MILITARY?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME BEIJING (AP) -- China and Russia will hold their first joint military exercise next year, the Chinese government said Monday, as President Hu Jintao called for an expansion of the rapidly growing alliance between the former Cold War rivals. The announcement came during a visit to Beijing by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, who was expected to discuss expanding the Kremlin's multibillion-dollar annual arms sales to China. The exercises are to take place on Chinese territory, the official China News Service said. But that report and other government statements didn't say when they would take place or what forces would be involved. "We want ... to promote the development of the two countries' strategic collaborative relationship in order to safeguard and promote regional and world peace," CNS quoted Hu as telling Ivanov. Beijing and Moscow have built up military and political ties since the Soviet collapse in 1991, driven in part by joint desire to counterbalance U.S. global dominance. They are partners of the six-nation Shanghai Cooperation Organization, formed to combat what they consider the common threat of Islamic extremism and separatism. The other members are the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The announcement of military exercises comes two months after Beijing and Moscow settled the last of their decades-old border disputes that led to violent clashes in the 1960s and '70s. The agreement was signed during an October trip to Beijing by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who said relations had reached "unparalleled heights." That visit also produced a pact to jointly develop Russian energy resources - an urgent issue for Beijing, which is trying to avert fuel shortages in its booming economy. The frontier where at one point 700,000 Soviet troops faced 1 million Chinese soldiers is now a bustling cross-border market. China has become the Russian arms industry's No. 1 customer, and is expected to buy $2 billion in weapons this year. Russia is a key supplier for the Chinese military's effort to modernize its arsenal and back up frequent threats to invade Taiwan, the self-ruled island that Beijing claims as its territory. The United States and the European Union have banned weapons sales to China since its bloody 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy protesters. But Moscow has supplied Beijing with high-performance Su-27 fighters and other top-of-the-line arms. Ivanov also met with Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan and Guo Boxiong, deputy chairman of the Communist Party commission that runs China's military, the official Xinhua News Agency said. Hu is chairman of the commission. Hu is to visit Moscow in May during festivities commemorating the end of World War II. -------- africa Libya snubs Africans as it turns to the West The New York Times By Craig S. Smith December 13, 2004 http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/12/news/libya.html TRIPOLI, Libya When Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi proposed a borderless United States of Africa several years ago, Kofi Bafoo in Ghana answered his call. Like hundreds of thousands of other young men living in the impoverished countries along the Sahara's southern fringe, Bafoo left for this oil-rich promised land with hopes of building a life on the Mediterranean coast. It did not work out that way. Few of the estimated one million Africans who flooded into Libya found jobs in the country's feeble economy, so Bafoo and thousands of other young African men set their sights on Europe. Libya, it seems, was happy to let them go. "Until 2003, every day boats were leaving," Bafoo said, limping on a foot injured recently while he was running from the police. "The government knew about it, but they didn't care." The problem began a decade ago. Qaddafi turned his attention south, frustrated by his failure to build pan-Arab unity and by the Arab world's lack of support for him in the face of United Nations sanctions imposed in 1992 to press Libya to deliver suspects in the bombing of a PanAm flight over Lockerbie, Scotland. After African countries agreed to defy the sanctions by resuming flights to Libya in 1998, Qaddafi renamed the country's Voice of the Greater Arab Homeland radio station: He called it the Voice of Africa and began talking in earnest about his pan-African plans. But last year the sanctions were lifted, and the Libyan leader has shifted his focus again, this time from Africa to new friends in the West who are eager to stop the African migration to Europe. The Libyan authorities have begun arresting and deporting those caught without a valid visa, even though visa requirements had been abolished earlier as part of Qaddafi's African outreach. "For years, Libya said it could not play policeman for the West, but now, with the rapprochement, Libya has entered into a dialogue to deal with the situation," said Saleh Ibrahim, director of an academic institute close to the Libyan leader. Bafoo, 25, tried to emigrate last year but lost $1,000 to an unscrupulous intermediary who made off with the cash. In January, he lost $1,200 when the Tunisian Navy intercepted his boat and sent him back to Libya. The Libyan police arrested him a few days ago and took his last $500. He hurt his foot when he escaped by scrambling over a cinder-block wall. "They discriminate by the color of your skin," said Bafoo, his injured foot smeared with massage cream because he has no identity papers or money for a hospital. The boat people leaving from Libya are part of a broader wave of Europe-bound illegal immigrants from all along the North African coast, but nowhere has the passing been as easy or the traffic as heavy as it has been from here. "We have cooperation with Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, but there have been no formal relations with this country and that has created a gap," said a European diplomat in Tripoli who has been involved in talks on how best to stem the tide. Some of the Africans here say there was a rush of boats leaving Libya in recent months as people took their chances before the seas turned rough in November. More than 1,500 people landed on the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa in October. Libyan officials insist that their country has not abandoned Qaddafi's pan-African vision, but they say the problem has grown to a scale that cannot be ignored. Although Libya is now pushing Europe and the United States to increase investment in sub-Saharan Africa in the hope of keeping young men there, many of the Africans lured here by his past promises feel betrayed. "Libya told all the Africans, 'Libya is Africa, so you can come,' but many more people came than the country could handle," Abbas Albal Kindam Yusef, a migrant from the Sudanese region of Darfur, said. "Now they want us to leave." Amin Boubaker said that two years ago he spent $1,200 to get to Italy on a small Tunisian fishing boat with about 70 other people. They waited two days in the bush near Zuwarah for their boat to appear. When it did, they waded into the sea and clambered aboard in the darkness before dawn. To pilot the boat, the Africans chose the only one among them who knew how to drive a car. After four days, they spotted lights on the horizon and cheered. But it was not Italy. Within hours, the 70 were picked up by a Tunisian naval patrol, which sank the boat and sent the men to prison. They were released two weeks later near the Libyan border and made their way back to Tripoli. Since then, the climate for Africans in Libya has rapidly deteriorated. Though the Africans provide cheap labor, ordinary Libyans never shared their leader's enthusiasm for their poor neighbors. In 2000, dozens of Africans were killed by mobs in western Libya. Although some Libyans were punished then, Africans say they have no protection from average Libyans or the police today. They say that Africans are regularly beaten and robbed. Libya's crude banking system lacks international links, so the Africans have no way to send their earnings home. Some men slice open the brims of their caps and hide cash inside or slip bank notes between the plastic covers of their passport holders and reseal them. The men say the overland trip home is dangerous, difficult and increasingly expensive, because the Libyan soldiers at checkpoints on the roads demand bribes. Crossing the desert itself is the most treacherous part. Trucks are discovered in the arid wilderness with a grisly cargo of people who died of thirst after their vehicle broke down or ran out of fuel when the driver lost his way. "I'll take you to the border and you can see the bones of people in the desert, a skull here, a hand there, from people who lost their way," said a man eating from a communal bowl of stewed goat entrails in a building built for chickens that now houses hundreds of Sudanese, instead. "We have no way to go back." But the draw of Europe remains strong. "I have many friends living in Italy now," said Muhammad Mutawakil, wearing a yellow baseball cap, "and they are doing much better than we are here or than our families in Ghana." -------- arms Three surface-to-air missiles seized in Albania TIRANA (AFP) Dec 13, 2004 http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041213155718.psnalqx5.html Four people were arrested in Albania on Monday for allegedly trying to smuggle three surface-to-air missiles in a truck from Montenegro, police said. The unidentified suspects were arrested in Fushe Preze, 20 kilometersmiles) north of the Albanian capital Tirana, when officers stopped and searched their truck, the police said. The missiles were believed to have been produced in the rump Yugoslavia, which was disbanded last year and replaced by the loose union of Serbia-Montenegro. Police said the suspects had been charged with arms trafficking. The missiles' destination was unknown but Albania was believed to be just a transit country. -------- business Retired General Brings Military Expertise to Firm's Contract Unit By Renae Merle Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, December 13, 2004; Page E01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60099-2004Dec12?language=printer HNTB Cos. has recruited retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the former commander of the U.S. Southern Command, to serve as non-executive chairman of its federal government operation in Washington. It's part of a push by the Kansas City, Mo., engineering firm to increase its share of federal contracts, especially in defense and homeland security. In the past year HNTB has hired eight senior executives with extensive military and government experience, including Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers, former chief of engineers and commanding general of the Army Corps of Engineers. McCaffrey works as a commentator for NBC News and is the former director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. "People who are successful in commercial business, they understand how the free market works," said Brett Lambert, a defense consultant at research firm DFI International Inc. "The government is not a free market. You have to have the expertise of people who have been on the other side of the table to make any headway into that market. You want to hire a salesperson who looks a lot like the customer." HNTB is going after the market for federal engineering and design services, betting that spending by the Pentagon and the Homeland Security Department will continue to grow for such infrastructure projects as strengthening bridges against attacks and designing the traffic flow around border entries to increase security while accommodating increased traffic. The company expects to receive $16 million in federal-government-related work this year, up from $8 million last year, but a fraction of what it estimates is a $100 billion-a-year market. The company wants to capture $300 million of the market within 10 years, nearly doubling the size of the overall company, said Flowers, chief executive of the federal business. The market "will be significant and grow to be extremely large and will stay steady for 10 to 15 years," McCaffrey predicted. But it's an increasingly competitive market, and other firms are employing similar strategies, industry analysts said. While HNTB might face five or six competitors when it bids on a city contract for a new convention center, they said, twice as many competitors are likely to bid for a federal project, including larger firms such as Bechtel Group Inc. and Parsons Corp. "Industry firms are positioning themselves to get more in this market. It's on every firm's radar screen," said Janice L. Tuchman, editor of industry magazine Engineering News-Record. "Everybody's thinking about security in a way they haven't before." For HNTB, the push into the federal market also may help offset sluggish demand for transportation-related projects, including designing bridges, highways and airports. Such work accounts for 88 percent of the firms' $499 million a year in revenue. Many states are postponing decisions on long-term projects until a federal transportation funding bill that has been stalled for the past year is passed, a HNTB spokeswoman said. McCaffrey said he will focus on helping the firm develop strategy and will retain his positions at NBC and on several other boards. During his time in government, McCaffrey said, he "had an enormous amount of dealings with Congress." He said his experience gave him a "good perspective of how the country works, how policy gets made." Staff researcher Richard Drezen contributed to this report. -------- iraq War planes fire on Fallujah AFP December 13, 2004 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11673304%5E1702,00.html US war planes fired several missiles at targets in the Iraqi city of Fallujah today, as marines pressed on with their search for rebels remaining in the Sunni Muslim city. The operations followed renewed fighting yesterday in northern and southern Fallujah, which was devastated last month when US and Iraqi forces stormed the city in a bid to wrest it from rebels. "We're clearing up the last ones (insurgents). They're holed up in places," Sergeant Ted Herald of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, said. Coalition troops killed hundreds of fighters during last month's assault, but have continued to face pockets of rebels as they clear the city. At least 18 suspected rebels were killed on Friday, Herald said, adding that he did not think insurgents had returned to Fallujah since the assault. He said fighters remaining in the city "were biding their time. They are waiting for us to leave". The top US marine commander in Iraq, Lieutenant General John Sattler, said on Thursday about 97 per cent of Fallujah had been cleared of rebels and bombs as coalition forces tried to restore security so tens of thousands of residents could return. Most of Fallujah's 250,000 people fled the city before the November 8 assault. ----- One year on, the capture of Saddam Hussein can be seen as a false dawn for Iraq independent.co.uk By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad 13 December 2004 http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=592529 A year ago yesterday, a bedraggled Saddam Hussein was dragged from a hole in the ground to a chorus of self-congratulation from US officials claiming his capture was a turning point in the Iraq war. "In the history of Iraq, a dark and painful era is over," declared George Bush the day after the former Iraqi leader was seized. "A hopeful day has arrived. All Iraqis can come together and build a new Iraq." The optimism of US military commanders was extraordinary. Major General Ray Odierno, whose 4th Infantry Division was credited with arresting Saddam, declared a month later that the insurgency was "on its knees" and only "a sporadic threat". He went on to assure the press in Washington that "in six months you are going to see some normalcy". A year later, American casualties showed how little the war was affected by the imprisonment of Saddam. Of the 1,283 US soldiers who have died in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003, 821 of them were killed since his capture. Six months on, the US fully controlled only islands of territory in Iraq. All the main roads leading out of Baghdad were unsafe. The resistance felt strong enough to openly establish checkpoints around the capital. Why did Saddam's capture accomplish so little compared to the expectations of the White House? It believed much of its own propaganda about the resistance being orchestrated by remnants of Saddam's regime. But it was never likely that Iraqis who failed to fight for Saddam when he was in power were doing so after he was overthrown. During the invasion last year, the roads of Iraq were choked with abandoned tanks and armoured vehicles. Most of the Iraqi army, including the supposedly elite Republican Guard, simply went home. Saddam was a highly convenient enemy for Washington. He was easily demonised. He was also militarily incompetent. The very fact that his hiding place was betrayed and he was captured alone shows that he had no secret infrastructure for a guerrilla war after he fled Baghdad. His sons Uday and Qusai were also betrayed to the US army. At the heart of the US miscalculation of the impact of Saddam's capture was ignorance about the simple reason for the rising strength of the Iraqi resistance: outside Kurdistan the great majority of Iraqis, whatever they thought of Saddam, were against the US occupation. This is true of the majority Shia Muslims, as well as the Sunni Arabs who have risen in rebellion. A main demand of the Shia electoral list, likely to attract the most votes in the 30 January election, is for an end to the occupation. The famous pack of cards showing the senior members of the former regime - Saddam was, of course, the Ace of Spades - is now something of an embarrassment. Most have been caught or given themselves up, but it has not affected the uprising. At first, it appeared possible that Saddam would play a role in the US presidential election in November. His trial could have been portrayed as evidence of the victory of the administration in Iraq. But his appearance in court last July largely backfired. US officials failed to turn off the sound equipment of television crews in the court. As a result, instead of the beaten and bewildered Saddam of seven months before, Iraqis saw a pugnacious figure decrying his judges as US dupes. At the same time the Iraqis in charge of the trial, notably Salem Chalabi, the nephew of Ahmed Chalabi, once favoured by the Pentagon, had themselves been purged. Now men loyal to Iyad Allawi, the interim Iraqi Prime Minister, will be in charge of the proceedings. But the arrest anniversary was marked by some of Saddam Hussein's old lieutenants, among them Tariq Aziz, who went on hunger strike over access to lawyers and fears of being handed over to Iraqis. ----- Iraq's Reality zmag.org Dahr Jamail interviewed by Charles Shaw December 13, 2004 http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6857 Charles Shaw: How long have you been reporting on Iraq, and what brought you there? Dahr Jamail: I have spent 6 of the last 12 months in Iraq. As I mentioned, what brought me here was the nearly total failure of the US 'mainstream' media to show the truth of this illegal invasion and occupation. How it affected the Iraqis, as well as US soldiers. Overall, they just weren't doing their job, and this has grown even worse. I had done all the usual actions of attempting to speak up and effect change at home-calling and writing Senators/Congresspeople, attending teach-ins, spreading information. After watching the worldwide demonstrations on February 15, 2003 be brushed aside as a "focus group," I knew then that the minds of the American public had been misled by the corporate media who mindlessly supported the objectives of the Bush regime, and reporting the true effects of the invasion/occupation on the Iraqi people and US soldiers was what I needed to do. CS: What is it like being one of the only "unembedded" journalists operating in the country? Do you fear for your safety, and what have you done to ensure your safety? Whom do you fear more, random kidnappers or the American Military? How do you manage to move through Iraqi society now when it appears that, in the wake of Margaret Hassan's murder, all Westerners are viable targets? And on that same note, what do the Iraqis think of the kidnappings, murders, and beheadings? DJ: It's tough. Working in this environment of media repression and danger is always an uphill battle. Blinking electricity, car bombs, kidnappings are the playing field. I constantly monitor my safety factor and those who work with me. I grew a beard, dress like locals, and only travel around covertly with one interpreter in a beat up car. I minimize my time on the street, while at the same time spending enough there to get the Iraqis reactions to what unfolds here each day. My greatest concern is the reaction of my own government. I'm reporting information that the Bush regime wants kept under wraps. I fear reprisal from both the government and military far, far more than being kidnapped or blown up by a car bomb. Iraqis are of course shocked and outraged by the beheadings and kidnappings of people like Margaret Hassan. So many also believe it was a CIA/Mossad plot to keep aid organizations and journalists out of Iraq in order to give the military and corporations here a free hand to continue to dis-assemble and sell of the country. CS: On Nov 18 in one of your dispatches you wrote, "Journalists are increasingly being detained and threatened by the U.S.-installed interim government in Iraq. Media have been stopped particularly from covering recent horrific events in Fallujah." What are the predominant differences between your reporting and that of the corporate media and embedded reporters, or that of Iraqi and Muslim journalists? In other words, what does each group do with the same pieces of information? Do you feel you have a freer hand by being "unembedded"? Have you or anyone you know been intimidated or harassed in any way? DJ: Myself and most Arab and western independent journalists here show the costs of war. Report the massacres, the slaughter, the dead and wounded kids, disaster that this occupation truly is for the Iraqi people. Report on the low morale of most soldiers here, report on how doctors now state openly that due to lack of funds and help from the US-backed Ministry of Health, they feel it is worse now than during the sanctions. I do feel I have more freedom because I am "unembedded." I'm flying under the mainstream radar of censorship. I have been attacked from some mainstream sources and pundits. Fox propaganda channel invited me on after I accurately reported the sniping of ambulances, medical workers and civilians in Fallujah last April...I declined the set up because I didn't have a desire to have my character assassinated. My website has taken some attacks by hackers...but so far we've managed the onslaught. I receive some hate mail via my site, and have received one death threat...so far. CS: The US Corporate media consistently characterizes the Iraqi resistance as "foreign terrorists and former Ba'athist insurgents". In your experience, is this an accurate portrayal? If not, why? DJ: This is propaganda of the worst kind. Most Iraqis refer to the Iraqi Resistance as "patriots." Which of course most of them are-they are, especially in Fallujah, primarily composed of people who simply are resisting the occupation of their country by a foreign power. They are people who have had family members killed, detained, tortured and humiliated by the illegal occupiers of their shattered country. Calling them "foreign terrorists" and "Ba'athist insurgents" is simply a lie. While there are small elements of these, they are distinctly different from the Iraqi Resistance, who are now supported by, very conservatively at least 80% of the population here. There are terrorist elements here, but that is because the borders of Iraq have been left wide open since the invasion. These did not exist in Iraq before. The Bush regime like to refer to anyone who does not support their ideology and plans for global domination as a "terrorist." Here, these fighters in the Iraqi Resistance are referred to as freedom fighters, holy warriors and patriots. CS: We rarely see any substantial imagery coming out of Iraq in the US corporate media. What does Iraq look like now? What aren't the people in the United States seeing, and what do you feel they should be seeing? DJ: The devastation. The massive suffering and devastation of the people and their country. Baghdad remains in shambles 19 months into this illegal occupation. Bombed buildings sit as insulting reminders of unbroken promises of reconstruction. Bullet ridden mosques with blood stained carpets inside where worshippers, unarmed, have been slaughtered by soldiers. Entire families living on the street. 70% unemployment with no hope of this changing. Chaotic, clogged streets of Baghdad and 5 mile long petrol lines in this oil rich country. Engineers and doctors, unemployed, driving their cars as a taxi to try to feed their families. The seething anger in the eyes of people on the streets as US patrols rumble past. Iraqis now cheering when another US patrol or base is attacked. Dancing on the burning US military hardware. Dead and maimed US soldiers. The wounded screaming and writhing in agony. Their shattered families. The mass graves of innocent Fallujans after the utter destruction of their city. Children deformed by Depleted Uranium exposure lying in shattered hospitals, suffering from lack of treatment, or even pain medications. Dead, rotting bodies in the streets of Fallujah of women and children being eaten by dogs and cats because the military did not allow relief teams into the city for nearly two weeks. CS: What are the sentiments of the Iraqis you have spoken with towards the Americans? Is there any good will left? Was there any to begin with? What do they think of Alawi, the pending "elections", the continued occupation, the American-trained Iraqi security forces? Do they have any hope or belief that the Americans will leave, or are they thinking this will be a generation-long occupation? DJ: There was support by most Iraqis for the removal of Saddam Hussein. But that started to ebb quickly on in the occupation as people watched family members killed, detained, tortured and humiliated by the occupation forces. Then there was Abu Ghraib. I cannot stress enough how devastating this was to US credibility in Iraq, and the entire Middle East. Throw on top of that the April siege of Fallujah, nearly complete lack of reconstruction, importation of foreign workers to do jobs Iraqis are far more qualified for, the installation of an illegal interim government, and you have a complete PR disaster for the US here. Any credibility for the occupiers, and I doubt there was much to speak of, after the destruction of Fallujah has been lost. Iraqis I speak with are infuriated at the US government. While they are well aware that what is most likely the majority of people in the US being in opposition to the Bush regime, they believe the US government and those who support it are guilty of war crimes of the worst kind. I see rage, grief, and the desire for revenge on a daily basis here. They hate Allawi. They have no respect for him or any other of the puppets in the US-installed interim government, because they don't see how any self-respecting person would allow themselves to be a puppet of the US in this illegal, brutal endeavor. They are well aware that he is an exile who has been linked with the CIA and British intel for a long, long time. He and the rest of the interim government are views as thieves, rapists and US pawns. They are utterly loathed, as everyone here knows these people do not have the interests of the Iraqi people in mind. The elections are viewed as a joke. Most here now believe there is no way they can be held in an honest, transparent and truly democratic way. Most are also too afraid to vote. I've heard people say things like, "The Americans won't even allow a legitimate election in their own country, so why would they want to have one here!" The Iraqi "security" forces, being the police and national guard, are viewed by most as surrogates of the US military. They are viewed as collaborators and traitors by most. While people understand many of these forces join out of desperation because there are no jobs, they remain loathed, along with the foreign occupation forces. It doesn't help when many of the police are actively involved in organized crime. Lastly, the occupation is viewed as endless. Iraqis know there are already 4 permanent military bases here, and more soldiers coming. There is little hope amongst those I talk with about this topic that the occupation will end. CS: We've read substantive reports recently that over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed since the war began. What is your take on this report, and what have you seen that either supports or contradicts it? Is the US military indiscriminately targeting civilians, or are they just hopelessly inept, or is it something in-between? DJ: I think this report has understated the death toll. From what I've seen during my six months here, it is increasingly difficult to find a family here who has not had at least one member killed by either the military or criminal activity. Entire neighborhoods in Fallujah have been bombed into rubble. Houses with entire families have been incinerated and blown to pieces. The random gunfire of soldiers nearly every time a patrol or convoy is attacked almost always results in civilian deaths. Keep in mind there are now over 100 attacks per day on US forces in occupied Iraq. Then we have the infrastructure-people dying from lack of food, water borne diseases, inadequate health care...the list is longer than any of us know. I think the military is killing so many civilians for several reasons. Primarily, because they have been put in an untenable situation by their Commander in Chief-that is, a no-win guerilla war against an enemy who now has the massive support of the populace. Thus, anyone, anytime could be an attacker. So they are shooting first and asking questions later because they are scared to death. They are using a conventional military to fight a guerilla war-and just as in Vietnam, it is a disaster and utter failure. Then there are the soldiers who have completely dehumanized Iraqis, and I've spoken with some who seem to actually enjoy killing them. Of course it doesn't help that this is sanctioned and encouraged by the US government, and that blinding religious ideology appears to have filtered down into many of the soldiers here. "You are either with us, or