NucNews - June 28, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- australia AUSTRALIA's Uranium exports to 'treble' within five years Nigel Wilson, National energy writer June 28, 2005 The Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15752132%255E2702,00.html AUSTRALIA's uranium exports will "most likely treble" to more than 13,000tonnes a year within five years, according to federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane. Speaking to The Australian, he said such potential in export earnings was being put at risk because of the "illogical" positions of the West Australian and Northern Territory Governments. "Western Australia, according to our information, is blocking for purely ideological reasons an industry that could deliver $6billion in export earnings while the estimate for the Northern Territory is around $12billion," Mr Macfarlane said. "While we cannot railroad state governments on mining developments, you can rest assured that we will not be letting the opposition of the two governments stop us from encouraging uranium exports to help meet the energy needs of China and India." Mr Macfarlane said the federal Government believed talks with Chinese authorities that would encourage China to adopt the uranium safeguards required under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty were going well and would lead to an agreement that would encourage export sales. Under present arrangements, Australia can only export to countries that are signatories to the treaty. West Australian Premier Geoff Gallop is adamantly opposed to uranium mining, while recently re-elected NT Chief Minister Clare Martin has said her administration would oppose the opening of new mines in the territory but not block existing operations. Dr Gallop said the West Australian electorate had made a clear decision on uranium mining as recently as the February state election. Mr Macfarlane said Dr Gallop and Ms Martin were effectively clearing the way for BHP Billiton to make billions of dollars in earnings from the Olympic Dam uranium deposit in South Australia, which it is acquiring through its takeover of WMC Resources. Olympic Dam is estimated to contain almost 40 per cent of the world's low-cost uranium. Mr Macfarlane said that in recent months European countries, including Germany, that had previously indicated they would close nuclear power facilities because of opposition from green groups, had realised the difficulties of meeting greenhouse gas emissions commitments without nuclear energy. Even if a future government decided on the nuclear power option, it would take up to 25 years before a domestic nuclear power plant would be operational. "That's why WA and the Northern Territory should look at what the governments of NSW, Victoria and South Australia are saying," Mr Macfarlane said. "Exporting uranium means a better deal for Australian taxpayers as well as more investment and more jobs." ---- Uranium mining inquiry may lead to nuclear power inquiry Tuesday, June 28, 2005. 4:00pm (AEST) http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1402476.htm The head of a federal parliamentary inquiry into uranium mining says it has received a lot of support for nuclear power in Australia. The 10-member parliamentary inquiry is made up of five Liberals, three Labor members, one independent and one Country Liberal Party member. It has been set up to investigate development of Australia's uranium exports. But the federal Member for Forrest and chair of the committee, Geoff Prosser, says it is now likely the findings could lead to a spin-off inquiry into nuclear power. Mr Prosser says the inquiry has already received almost 200 submissions. "The broad submissions are obviously pro further mining of uranium," he said. "Of that we've been surprised at the number of submissions that want to go further and are promoting a fresh look at nuclear power." ---- Push for parliamentary committee into Australian uranium mining Australia Broadcasting PM - Tuesday, 28 June , 2005 18:29:00 Reporter: Louise Yaxley http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1402588.htm PETER CAVE: There's a strong push for a Federal parliamentary committee to call for a major expansion of Australian uranium mining. Most submissions to the committee argue for Australia's selling more of its extensive uranium resources, but some also go further and suggest that Australia should use its own uranium to replace coal-fired power stations with nuclear generated electricity. And there is also a call for it to store nuclear waste in the outback, with the argument that there are ideal geological locations, political stability and responsible attitudes here. Louise Yaxley reports. LOUISE YAXLEY: Submissions have poured into the committee arguing for Australia to take advantage of the world demand for uranium. Most say Australia has plenty of the resource but isn't allowing new mines. They say there are huge economic benefits to be reaped but also put an environmental argument, that rapidly developing nations like China and India can drastically cut their greenhouse gas emissions if they rely on nuclear power, not coal power. Alistair Stephens of Arafura Resources says nuclear power is mankind's single greatest opportunity to combat a looming environmental threat. ALISTAIR STEPHENS: But when you look at countries like China and India and their insatiable need for power, and if you want to help world economic growth and you've got to allow China and India to prosper, the two basic commodities they need are fresh water and power. And the amount of power they need, if you were to solely source that from fossil fuels, you're going to have a significant impact on our environment. LOUISE YAXLEY: Keith Alder, a former director of research at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission doesn't agree that if Australia sells more uranium it would mean world greenhouse gas levels fall. He says there are no implications outside Australia because nearly all developing nations are already moving to nuclear, and will buy uranium from elsewhere. He says the Canadians will continue to laugh all the way to the bank. Mr Alder says Australia should be cutting its own greenhouse emissions by burning its own uranium. But most submissions don't touch on whether Australia should turn to nuclear power because the committee didn't ask them to. It's a sensitive issue. At the weekend's Liberal council meeting, the Finance Minister Nick Minchin, argued that the greenhouse gas argument could be used as a political trap. NICK MINCHIN: We must avoid, in my view, being lumbered as the party that favours nuclear energy in this country. I think Bob Carr has put this on the agenda for very deliberate cynical reasons. He knows he must build a new coal fired power station in New South Wales. The Greens are against that. So he set up the straw man "oh, well, if we don't build this we'll have to go nuclear. Gosh we can't have that, right, we'll build the coal-fired power station". We would be political mugs if we get sucked into this. LOUISE YAXLEY: It is a divisive issue. Alistair Stephens from Arafura Resources says it arouses deep emotions but he calls on the committee to consider all issues, including nuclear waste disposal in Australia. ALISTAIR STEPHENS: There are a number of issues around the disposal of waste from nuclear fuels that can actually be stored safely. But we do recognise that it's an emotive issue. No one wants waste in their backyard. The community just really doesn't understand that there are viable options for safely storing waste material. LOUISE YAXLEY: How far do you think we are from Australians accepting something like nuclear waste storage? ALISTAIR STEPHENS: I think we're still a significant way off. It may be five years, I think, before we actually get into nuclear waste storage. It's going to take a lot of time and effort to be able to get the message across to the community such that that they can understand that the material can be safely disposed of, and won't impact the immediate or the long term future generations of communities. LOUISE YAXLEY: The greenhouse gas argument and the nuclear storage one worry a range of environmental groups which have made submissions too. The Medical Association for the Prevention of War's Victorian Branch argues the committee inquiry is a sham created to put pressure on State governments to allow more uranium mining. Its President, Tilman Ruff, argues nuclear power doesn't have as many greenhouse benefits as are claimed. TILMAN RUFF: It's certainly true that a nuclear reactor, once it's operating, will emit less greenhouse gases than a plant that's burning fossil fuel. No question about that. But I think you've got to look at the whole thing in the context of all of the energy inputs required over the whole of the nuclear fuel cycle. So that the mining of uranium, its enrichment, its transport, all very highly energy intensive processes will largely be powered by fossil fuels. You've got the whole construction of the reactor, which is not inconsiderable. PETER CAVE: Tilman Ruff, from the Medical Association for the Prevention of War. -------- britain Rising sea levels threaten nuke dump sites Jun. 28, 2005 at 9:46PM United Press International http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20050628-093805-7813r.htm Britain's only nuclear waste dump could be underwater in 500 years if sea levels keep rising. One million cubic meters of low-level radioactive waste are stored at Drigg on the coast of Cumbria on the Irish Sea, New Scientist reports. The Environment Agency says that the waste is likely to leak if the sea rises, posing a major health threat to residents of the area. Similar problems are likely to affect waste dumps at Rokkashomura in Japan and Lan Yu island in Taiwan, as well as the 13 nuclear reactors on the British Coast. "Climate change is now an issue that has to be taken into account in siting new facilities," Phil Richardson, an expert on nuclear waste with Enviros Consulting, told New Scientist. "Coastal sites used to be considered a good idea, but rising sea levels are bringing this assessment into question." ---- New history book sheds light on Britain's nuclear cargo in Falklands War LONDON (AFP) Jun 28, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050627230211.qqlqc1w2.html http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050628/wl_uk_afp/britainfalklandsargentina_050628100351 A cargo of nuclear arms onboard British ships sent to fight Argentina for the Falklands is detailed in a new history of the 1982 war released Tuesday, which also explores doubts about London's sovereignty over the disputed islands. "The Official History of the Falklands Campaign" by top historian Lawrence Freedman offers an unprecedented account of the build up to the 10-week conflict and the ensuing battles, including the controversial sinking of Argentina's Belgrano cruiser. Commissioned by the British government as part of a history series, the 1,102-page book draws on public evidence and secret documents to describe the crisis -- in which 649 Argentine and 255 British troops died -- and how then prime minister Margaret Thatcher acted. "My basic objective was to provide an account of what happened that people would trust and not think that I had any sort of political agenda of my own," said Freedman, a professor of war studies at King's College London. "I found that was the safest approach to take," he told AFP in an interview. Freedman said the most interesting fact he discovered during some eight years spent researching and writing the book -- which is published in three tomes -- was that Britain had transported nuclear arms to the South Atlantic. The military never intended to use the weapons against Argentina, but had decided that there had been insufficient time to off-load them, he said. Britain's Ministry of Defence admitted in December 2003 that some naval vessels were sent to fight the Falklands War carrying nuclear weapons, but Freedman said his book offered the most detailed account yet of the event. He describes how two ships -- Brilliant and Broadsword -- were called up to join a fleet of war vessels, each carrying two MC (600) nuclear depth charges. The book recounts the anguish of Britain's war cabinet, headed by Thatcher, over whether to send ships routinely equipped with nuclear arms into battle or delay their departure by up to 36 hours to unload them. In the end, ministers decided to store the weapons on two carriers -- Hermes and Invincible -- which would not be allowed to enter the Falklands' territorial waters to avoid potentially violating any international law. "This meant that Hermes was carrying 40 percent and Invincible 25 percent of the total UK stockpile of MC (600)s into the South Atlantic," Freedman wrote. Fears about the potential consequences of a direct hit, following a string of deadly Argentine air attacks on the British fleet, prompted the decision-makers to order the nuclear arms out of the area on May 28. The book noted, however, that this did not happen completely until June 26 -- almost two weeks after the fighting ended. While rubbishing any speculation that Britain had planned to use nuclear force in the April-June war, Freedman explored the possibility that such weapons were brought along for a more tactical purpose. He wrote that Britain's chief of defence staff Admiral Sir Terence "Lewin had not asked for nuclear depth charges, and had no plans to use them, but he was inclined to take them to the South Atlantic, just in case. "The scenario he had in mind involved Russian submarines getting involved on the Argentine side." Argentina took Britain by surprise when it stormed the tiny islands off its southern coast on April 2, 1982, following years of failed negotiations over the Falklands' sovereignty. London has occupied the territory since 1833 but Buenos Aires claims the land as its own. Freedman's book documents both sides' claims of ownership pre-1833. Argentina believes it inherited the so-called Malvinas from Spain in 1816, while Britain argues it already owned the islands after discovering and occupying them from the 1770s. In January 1833, Britain reasserted its authority over the Falklands, taking control from an Argentine military commander in a peaceful confrontation. But doubts remain over whether London acted legally. Freedman describes a memorandum drawn up by an assistant librarian at the Foreign Office, Gaston de Bernhardt, in 1910, which boosted Argentina's claim. The historian quoted one unnamed recipient of the note as saying: "From a perusal of this memo it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Argentine government's attitude is not altogether unjustified, and that our action has been somewhat high-handed." At the same time, Freedman said Britain increased its claim over the Falklands by effectively occupying the area for the past 172 years, but this theory has never been tested by international law. In the interview, he said the irony of the whole affair was that London would probably have concluded the islands were uneconomically viable had Argentina not muscled in with brute force. Following the war and a change in fishing licences, the Falklands' economy picked up, making the islanders less inclined to turn to Argentina, he said. "Because the Argentines rushed in when they did, they transformed the whole future of the colony and that is how it remains." -------- depleted uranium Olympia may go 'nuclear-free' THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Tuesday, June 28, 2005 Last updated 3:02 p.m. PT http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20Nuke%20free%20Oly OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Washington's liberal capital city is considering a plan to declare itself a "nuclear-free zone." The designation, now being drafted for the City Council, would halt city purchases of police cars, cell phones and other supplies from all or most of an estimated 32 companies connected with nuclear weapons production. Olympia is home to a politically active peace movement, with activists holding a vigil in the main town square once a week. Townspeople have complained about shipments of Iraq war supplies through its port and some critics have urged the USS Olympia, a nuclear-powered submarine, to stop calling on its namesake city. In February, the council passed a resolution calling for a worldwide end to nuclear weapons by 2020. In May, Councilman TJ Johnson, sponsor of the nuclear-free ordinance, represented the city at an international conference at the United Nations on nuclear proliferation. The resolution said Olympia should stop buying goods and services from companies directly linked to manufacture of nuclear weapons. City official Mary Lou Berg said that includes Chrysler, which builds police cars, and Motorola, which makes Nextel phones used by up to 400 city employees. The city would seek new suppliers. If none were found, the city could continue doing business, but would send the firm a letter encouraging a policy change. "It hit me how prevalent the stuff is," Johnson told The Olympian newspaper in an article published Tuesday. "It reinforced the logic that we have to start somewhere. We might as well start here." Another backer, Councilman Curt Pavola, said: "Consumers control the market. They can steer the market any way they want to." City Manager Steve Hall said tying the nuclear-free designation to the city's business practices will send a message that it's more than window dressing. But he added that it might be hard to "quit cold turkey all at once." The ordinance would ban shipment of nuclear weapons through the city or its port, but wouldn't apply to nuclear medicine, smoke detectors, timepieces, or depleted uranium. Johnson said more than 1,200 cities and 100 countries are "nuclear-free." Olympia's ordinance is based on one adopted by Takoma Park, Md., that was approved 20 years ago and survived a legal challenge. The measure will have a public hearing on Aug. 9, and would take effect 30 days after adoption. Information from: The Olympian, http://www.theolympian.com ---- The Excessive Use of Weapons and Banned Weapons By Akira Maeda, Sayo Saruta, Koichi Inamori Istanbul, June 27, 2005 Jun 28, 2005, 04:38 Axis of Logic http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_18827.shtml The Use of Depleted Uranium (DU) Weapons 1. The Truth About the Use of Depleted Uranium (DU) Weapons by US and UK Troops The US and UK troops in the attacks on Iraq that started on 21 March 2001 used DU weapons during the battles at various places in Iraq. The truth of the use of DU weapons by US troop was verified and admitted by Brigadier General Brooks in a press briefing on 26 March of the same year when he said, "DU bombs had been used.". Michael Kilpatrick, Deputy Director of Deployment Health Support in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, at a forum at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on 6 March 2004, said, "The Army fired and used from tanks and armored vehicle 24 tons or less of DU bombs, and the Air Force, 10 tons or less of DU bombs from A-10 planes. These, when combined, would be equivalent to 115 tons of metallic uranium. Also, before the outbreak of the war, on 15 March 2003, in a press briefing at the Department of Defense, Colonel Naughton, stated that "Abrams tanks had been loaded with DU bombshells," and "so were A-10 planes" because "there was not other choice. Witnesses had repeatedly seen civilian facilities being targeted by A- 10 planes starting with Iraq's Planning Ministry during the aerial bombing of Baghdad. Report on the investigation conducted by Scott Peterson, as a matter of fact, corroborated the statement given by Colonel Naugton at the above-mentioned press briefing. Abrams tanks were the main battle tanks used in the ground assault of Iraq. It is, therefore, highly probable that aside from the facts already verified, the US Armed Forces has used in large quantity DU weapons, even exceeding the reported volume, in all areas of offensive operations in Iraq, even at densely populated areas, particularly Baghdad, Basra, etc. 2. Special Properties of Depleted Uranium (DU) Weapons Storing depleted uranium is enormously expensive, but disposing it by all means is what the US Department of Energy has wanted to do. It is in military weapons that depleted uranium is used in extremely large scale, and it is used mainly as penetration body that is attached to bombshells for the sake of increasing its penetration capacity, and also as armor of tanks in order to increase its defense capacity. Mainly, uranium weapons have the following advantages: 1) Depleted uranium, because of its very heavy density (1.7 times of lead, 2.5 times of iron) and hardness, when used to tip bullets, increases the penetration power of the bullets, and displays such tremendous capacity as to power to open holes in thick iron plates and concrete. 2) Even when there are no explosives inside the bombshell, it explodes upon impact, and the capacity to kill and injure the enemy is high because of the high temperature it causes when it burns. 3) It is very cheap because its raw materials are radioactive wastes. However, when depleted uranium explodes upon impact, and burns with high temperature, it becomes microparticles of oxidized uranium (ceramic form aerosol of diametrical-micron; a micron is equivalent to 1/1000mm), discharged heavily, and are packed in tanks. Also, the particles diffused in the atmosphere and whirled up in the sky, pollute vast range of the atmosphere, and also, the particles that fall on the ground pollute the environment such as the soil and water, etc. 3. Dreadful Negative Effects of Depleted Uranium Weapons on the Human Body Once the uranium particles are inhaled into the body, the particles attach first to the trachea and the respiratory system. As the particles are practically insoluble, they are difficult to dissolve in the blood, and stay there for a long period of time. Eventually these clinging particles continue to expose the neighboring organs to radiation. By that, they cause the cell and the gene to go into some transformation, and cause cancers, leukemia, lymphoma, congenital disorders and defects. Then, gradually, they are absorbed into the blood and lymph, and cause various illnesses and damages to the whole body. Also, aside from inhalation, they get into the body and enter the bloodstream by oral ingestion and through wounds. This kind of very dangerous weapons are being diffused in large quantity all over Iraq by the US and British troops. Not only during the war, but also after the war, and an unimaginable length of time of 4.5 billion years hereafter, the people of Iraq will have to bear the burden of living in this vast polluted land and learn how to survive with this grim reality. The British and US troops, at the instance that they drop DU weapons, do not just snatch away precious lives but cause the Iraqis further and eternal miseries. 1) Physical Damages in Iraq After the Gulf War During the Gulf War in January 1991, the US Armed Forces dropped 320 tons of depleted uranium weapons on Iraq. Since after the war, there has been a high incidence of strange phenomenon not seen in Iraq before the war. There have been several incidences of such phenomenon as several members of one family developing cancer, or one patient having several types of cancer, etc., cancer that spreads fast, the outbreak of infectious diseases due to fast spreading cancer, leukemia, aplastic anemia, and malignant tumor, and immunodeficiency, massive herpes, and herpes zoster pain, symptoms resembling AIDS, syndrome due to liver and kidney dysfunction, hereditary dysphasia (hereditary damage) due to gene defects. Children, especially infants, who cannot fight back and are blameless, have become the number one victims of this war. The southern City of Basra, which is near the battleground of the Gulf War, has been very seriously damaged, and according to a doctor at the Basra Educational Hospital, the number of people who have succumbed to cancer rose from 34 in 1988 prior to the Gulf War to the astonishing figure of 603 in 2001 that was 17 times larger. i. Basra Maternity and Pediatrics Hospital. Mohammed Hoji (5) was diagnosed with leukemia just a year after his own mother, who was also confined in the same hospital, died of leukemia. The physician in charge of this case, Dr. Surin Shirub, related, "What makes this case to stand out is that the whole family and the brothers one by one have succumbed to cancer and leukemia. This kind of phenomenon never existed before the Gulf War." The aunt, Abed (32), who was caring for the boy lamented, "Why do we have to suffer like this even when the war is over?" . ii. Zein (5), who was confined in the Basra Maternity and Pediatrics Hospital, 5 months before, suddenly developed a swollen abdomen, and was diagnosed with leukemia. Since then, he had become weak and lost his gaiety. His mother, Semal (25), sighed, "I would like America to know how the war has caused us so much miseries for many generations to come." iii. Abbas (5), who was diagnosed with leukemia 3 years ago, was sleeping soundly beside his mother Hamdi (30). The hair on his head had become extremely thin as an effect of drugs administered to him. Hamdi said, "It's hard when you are helpless to do anything to save your child from his sufferings." Dr. Jasem (32) of this hospital related, "The damages of the war are not a temporary matter. Even after that, its innocent victims will suffer for generations to come. These innocent children of Iraq, in fact, have been deprived of their rights to be born with good health and grow normally because of the effects of these DU weapons. Furthermore, the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the UN from August 1990 had contributed more to this pathetic situation. The UN Resolution 661 had exempted from the embargo materials to be used for medical purposes. However, the committee that was charged with the implementation of the embargo in accordance with the provision of the Resolution 661 could not make this exemption operative due to opposition by commissioners from the US and UK, and thus, there arose a shortage of medical supplies, vaccines, syringes, anesthetics, and medical apparatuses necessary for medical treatments. According to a UNICEF report, by February 1991, medical supplies had reached 1/6 of the normal level of stockpile. Also, UNICEF, in a 1993 report, announced, "at the beginning of the Gulf War, the number of children dying was more or less 100,000, but after the war, the rate of death has increased 3 times of the number before the war. Medical care, and insurance service were rendered useless due to the shortage of supplies and apparatuses for medical care and treatment. And also, due to depleted uranium bombs that were used during the Gulf War, the number of cancer patients suddenly increased after the war. If proper treatment had been provided at the early stage of the disease, death could have been avoided, but due to the shortage of medical supplies and appliances because of the economic sanctions, patients could not be treated properly resulting in the great increase in the number of afflicted victims. . Likewise, the postwar depredation had driven the best of doctors in Iraq out of country. A lot many of the doctors and scholars, who stayed behind, were actually classified with world-class academes, and had participated and presented the results of their researches in international scientific and academic conferences. However, due to the economic sanctions, they were unable to obtain visas so that they could participate in international conferences and have the opportunity to continue to establish scholarly exchanges necessary for the advancement and improvement of the level of medical practice and treatment in Iraq. Even if they wanted to go overseas to receive training on radiation exposure, for example, or perhaps just to procure the necessary medical supplies, they could not do so because they could not get visas. Data of Iraqi victims were indispensable in coping with the inexperience with regard to the effects of radiation due to DU weapons, and while Iraqi doctors could be in a position to provide those data and materials, the economic sanctions hampered their progress and development. Dr. Junan, a cancer expert at the Ibn Gaswan Hospital, a Maternity and Pediatrics Hospital in the city of Basra related, "Children's leukemia, if treated thoroughly at the early stage, has a 70% chance of being cured, but the kind of medicine for this ailment is not available, and so, the patients cannot be treated well, and lamentably just end up dying. But under the present economic sanctions, we are allowed only to procure food supplies in exchange for oil, and we are forced to make do with only 20% of needed medical supplies. How then can we cure the sick?" In 2001 alone, 256 cases had been confirmed to be born with congenital defects in this hospital. 2) Clinical Cases of US Veterans in this Iraqi War As for Samawa, where the Self Defense Force is stationed, it is strategically located between Basra and Baghdad. The US army, when marching to Baghdad passing through this route, met with stiff resistance from Iraqi troops, and it took them a week to quell the insurgencies in towns and roads they passed by. Depleted uranium weapons were used during the fighting. Dr. Asaf Durakovic, a specialist on Nuclear Medicine, adviser of the National Science Foundation, and director of the nuclear medicine clinic created by the US Veterans Department after the end of the Gulf War, established the Uranium Medical Research Center, which is an independent research agency based in Canada, and for several years has continued to examine evidences of depleted uranium contamination of American, British and Canadian soldiers. According to a survey conducted by Dr. Durakovic published in the New York Daily News dated 3 April 2004, after the Iraqi War, he detected depleted uranium from the urine of 4 out of 9 US soldiers who were stationed to keep peace and order in Samawa after the Iraqi War, and returned home due to bad physical condition after complaining of chronic migraine, nausea, bloody urine, partial hearing and vision impairment, etc. (E24). The 442nd MP Company, where the surveyed soldiers belonged, was in charge of convoy and training of Iraqi policemen, and was not involved in direct combat. Depleted uranium was detected in these soldiers, who were doing such mission, and it was probable that they had been exposed to uranium by inhalation of depleted uranium particles in the atmosphere. Sgt. Juan Vega, Chief Medical Orderly of this company related, "One night, 10 to 15 people just suddenly fell ill and developed symptoms such as fever of as high as 39.4oC, chill and other symptoms of unexplained nature. More than a dozen people out of 160 soldiers suddenly had been having kidney stones." He said, "Samawa is like hell." The Dutch Company stationed at Samawa after that decided to set up camp in the middle of the desert because the radiation level in the environs where the US military set up camps was just too high. 4. Medical Verification For the sake of argument that the above-mentioned damages have been due to DU, we shall have to prove that there is a correlation between DU and its effects on the human body based on medical findings on the existence of this crisis pertaining to DU. Now, regarding Iraq after the Gulf War that has reported the most number of DUrelated casualties, we shall use as reference the data gathered by Fasy TM that were presented at the International DU Symposium held in New York in June 2003 as a medical paper never before published. 1) The Teratogenicity of Depleted Uranium (1) The Children of Iraq According to the data gathered by Fasy TM the frequency rate of congenital dysphasia is 3.04 per 1000 monitored in Basra, but in 2000, it rose to 17.6 that was 5-6 times higher than previously reported. This is particularly true in many reported cases where the parents were soldiers who participated in the Gulf War. (2) Children of Veterans of the Gulf War The result of a survey conducted to determine the frequency rate of congenital dysphasia on veterans of the Gulf War by the US Military Research Institute was published in a New England Journal of Medicine, a medical journal, according to Cowan in 1997. The conclusion was that there was no difference in the rate of frequency of congenital dysphasia of children of veterans of the Gulf War with veterans who did not go to the Gulf War. However, 5 months later, the result of the research conducted by three British researchers, Pat Doyle, Eve Roman, Noreen Maconochie, refuting the evaluation made only on children who were born and lived, disregarding aborted births and stillbirths due to massive congenital deformities, excluding 1/3 of overall number of discharged soldiers, and the inaccuracy of these investigations was published in the same journal. In 2001, Kang of the Veterans Affairs Administration announced a research that would not exclude aborted births/stillbirths, and veterans in their research. The result was that compared to veterans who did not go to the Gulf War, congenital dysphasia on children of veterans who served in the Gulf War was 2.3 times for male, and 2.4 times for female (E28). The truth about this increase in number even just on those who participated in the Gulf War is indeed astonishing. (3) Animal Experiments Based on the 2001 research conducted by Domingo JL of Spain, et al., when male rats were ingested for a period of 16 weeks with natural uranium, rate of pregnancy decreased, a degeneration of the testicles (male gonads) occurred, and there was a decrease in the production of sperms . Also, it was confirmed that 10 days before and after giving doses to pregnant mice, ossification is 3 times to 5 times lower compared to control group in litters, and there are numerous instances of birth defects of the extremities. In 2002, McClain DE, et al. of the US Armed Forces embedded depleted uranium in rats, and investigated to determine the effects of DU on the embryo. It was confirmed that the sizes of the embryos of rats are smaller after more than 6 months of being embedded with DU passing the placenta. The congenital dysphasia and various diseases in children of soldiers who participated in the Gulf War resemble the conditions of Iraqi children, and this can be traced to the teratogenicity in DU. 2) Carcinogenicity of Depleted Uranium (1) Iraqi Children Based on the data gathered by Fasy TM, in 1990 in Basra, out of 100,000 children, there were 3.98 cancer cases, but in 2000, the number increased to 13.1 cases . (2) Veterans of the Gulf War There is no medical report showing that there is a statistical increase of cancer in veterans of the Gulf War, but there is a need for a detailed investigation on the rate of incidence of cancer in children of veterans. (3) Experiments on Animals To sum up the series of animal experiments done by Miller, et al. of the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, DU increases the oncogene expression per human cell and cell disorder growth, etc., and causes the existence of cancer forming operation. Also, they explain that DU, more than even nickel that is known to cause tumor, largely increases more chromosomal abnormality linked with carcinogens. Hahn, et al reported that thorotrast and DU produce much more sarcoma (malignant tumor) when they conducted experiments by embedding tungsten, which is a heavy metal but non-radioactive material, and radioactive material thorotrast in rats. This indicates that DU is not only cancer causing as a heavy metal but is also cancer causing as a radioactive materials. (4) Effects on the Human Cell In 2003, Schroeder, et al of Germany analyzed the chromosomal abnormality of the lymphocytes of 16 soldiers who served in the Gulf War and Balkan War, and these soldiers were proven to have been exposed to radiation. They confirmed that the rate of specific c chromosomal abnormality among these soldiers was 4.2 higher when they compared the chromosomal abnormality ([dicentric] and [centric ring] chromosomes) that was said to be specific in ionizing radiation with non-specific chromosomal abnormality. They hinted and concluded that despite the fact that the specific chromosomal abnormality cell could not survive for long (half life being up to the extent of 3.5 years), they observed that even after a lapse of more than 10 years since the Gulf War, the body continued to be exposed to radiation due to the DU that had accumulated inside the body for long years.On top of this, they noted based on available data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki the fact that this exposure to radiation could cause chromosomal abnormality in lymphocytes. Thus, there is no doubt that the cause of cancer such as the increase in the number of cases of leukemia in Iraq today is connected with DU. 3) Verification of Gulf War Syndrome The Gulf War syndrome shows chronic symptoms such as fatigue, headache, muscle and osteoarticular pains, insomnia, neuropsychiatric symptom, impaired memory, impaired vision, etc. (1) Physical Condition of Gulf War Veterans It is evident that based on the data of Fukuda in 1998, which are data comparing the physical condition of soldiers who participated in the Gulf War (hereinafter referred to as GWV) with soldiers who did not participate in the Gulf War (hereinafter referred to as non-GWV), the frequency of various symptoms of chronicity is 39% in GWV against 14% in non-GWV of light and medium, etc. symptoms, and 6% in GWV against 0.7% in non-GWV of serious illness. It is evident that frequency of such symptoms is higher in soldiers who participated in the Gulf War. It cannot be far from the truth that based on the data of Kang in 1996, the rate of death in GWV is 10.4 against 9.6% in non-GWV showing statistically a difference . However, in the 2002 data of Kang, it shows that the number of accidental deaths is more numerous among GWV than among the non-GWV . Also, in 1997, Gray reported that hospitalization rate was 10% higher among soldiers who participated in the Gulf War . It is true that going to war is accompanied by a great risk, and the appearance of various symptoms after returning from the war is designated as "war syndrome." However, based on the report of Harvey RW, et al. of 2002, among the soldiers returning from the war, the number of the disabled persons, who have received services after that, 8.6% served in World War II, 5% in the Korean War, 9.6% in the Vietnam War and in the case of the Gulf War, it has reached 16% (estimated at 110,000 persons) . It is evident that the Gulf War, compared with other wars, has caused a lot many damages, and they cannot be categorized simply as some risk of going to war. Countless researches are being conducted on the causes of these symptoms, but no massive investigation placing primary focus on DU has been done. There exist, however, an extensive literature relating to depleted uranium (2) Experiments on Animals. Pellmar TC, et al, in 1999, revealed evidences of DU causing brain damage by embedding it in rats, and they arrived at the conclusion that DU produces neurological disorder. Also, as for effects of depleted uranium on peripheral nerves, they observed the occurrence of cramps, pain in the extremities, gait disorder, shiver, etc., and that there is damage of calcium metabolism of the neuromuscular junction. (3) Psycho-neuron Abnormalities McDiarmid, et al. of the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, in a research paper published in 2000, tested 29 people in 1997 out of the 33 veterans with fragments of DU in their body they had put under observation since 1993. They observed the neurocognizance test becoming bad in proportion to the high concentration of DU in their urines, and abnormality in the hormone function of the reproductive system. Also, they reported the genetic damage and the sperm count abnormality . Yet, while they recognize this sort of health problems, they made it look that there were not much complaints about the symptoms when comparing them with the 21 Gulf War veterans who had not been exposed to DU. However, 11 out of the 21 were in fact suffering from some neuron abnormality and were in extremely bad condition, and a terrible deception was evidently carried out. Similarly, tests were conducted in 1999, and in the report published in 2001, 29 people with incomparably low concentration of DU in their urines to the 21 out of the previous 33 people tested were added, and this was to intentionally dilute the results in an attempt to eliminate the difference abnormal neuron and reproductive hormone levels. . (4) Chromosomal Abnormality As previously stated, the chromosomes of 16 people who have been suffering from Gulf War syndrome are 5.2 times higher of [dicentric] and [ring centric] chromosomes. Others also, according to Uranobitz, et al, have verified seeing the chromosomal abnormality in veterans of the Gulf War who have shown such symptoms. (5) Increase of Depleted Uranium Density in Urine P Horan, et al of Canada examined the urines of 27 American, British and Canadian patients, and detected a high density of DU in 14 people. This data proves the fact that even after 8 or 9 years after exposure to DU, high density of DU are being discharged in the urine. In addition, Durakovic, et al have examined the uranium in the urine of 8 residents of 8 regions in Afghanistan who have symptoms similar to Gulf War syndrome, published in 2003 data on the detection of high density of uranium in the urine of all of them. Furthermore, in 2004, they published the data on the detection of DU in the urines of 4 out of 9 American soldiers, who were in charge of maintaining public order after the Iraqi War, and returned home due to poor physical condition. It is clear from the investigations conducted by Horan and Durakovic that DU remains in the body for several years. There is no doubt about the DU being more or less in part the cause of the Gulf War syndrome, and its toxicity. 4) There are researchers who recognize the toxicity of DU even within the US Military Arfsten DP of the Naval Health Research Center and Rictchie GD, et al of the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base have studied in detail all US military researches, etc. up until then, and in 2001, in their joint names, published their dissertation . (1) High density of DU in the urine was detected after a lapse of 10 years from soldiers, who had inhaled particles or pierced with fragments of DU during the conflict at the Gulf War and Kosovo. (2) In mice, the DU accumulated in the testicles, bone, kidneys, and brain. (3) In test-tube experiments, there were the genetic disorder characteristic and teratogenicity, and the rat, when embedded with DU, developed brain tumor. (4) It is possible to say that whether it is as a heavy metal or radioactivity, it has strong effect on the reproduction of rats. In this treatise, there is the remark that the opinion expressed here does not reflect the opinion of the military but are based on the point of views of the authors. However, even as researchers of the military, they have sufficiently recognized the damages caused by DU. Recognizing the risks is not limited to their researches. As previously stated, numerous medical researches relating to DU are being conducted even with grants from the military. Even when they are being conducted under the direct supervision of the military, these researches are being given emphasis even when they may verify the danger of DU. Suffice it to say, it is clear from existing medical dissertations that DU is an extremely dangerous substance that does not only cause temporary disorders, but chronic health breakdown, congenital defects, carcinogens, and other disorders. 5. Awareness on the Toxicity of DU weapons of the US Armed Forces The following are the explanations about the fact that the US Military is fully aware that DU weapons are harmful to the body by the development process of these weapons: 1) Letters to General Groves In October 1943, 3 physicists, A. H. Compton, et al., sent a letter proposing "research on development and protection of radioactive weapons" to General Groves who took part in the Manhattan Project. In this letter, the 3 doctors proposed the organization of a team for the sake of doing researches on the handling and preparation of radioactive materials as weapons, and also, the preparation in case the Nazi Germans would be ahead in developing similar weapons, and on protection from these weapons.@They hypothesized that these are weapons behaving just like toxic gas weapons. In the letter, they proposed, "as a gas warfare instrument the material would be grounded into particles of microscopic size to form dust and smoke and distributed by a ground-fired projectile, land vehicles, or aerial bombs. In this form personnel would inhale it into the lungs. The amount necessary to cause death to a person inhaling the material is extremely small. It has been estimated that one millionth of a gram accumulating in a person's body would be fatal." Also, it mentioned, "Two factors appear to increase the effectiveness of radioactive dust or smoke as a weapon. These are:_1 It cannot be detected by the senses; _2It can be distributed in a dust or smoke form so finely powdered that it will permeate a standard gas mask filter in quantities large enough to be extremely damaging. An off-setting factor in its effectiveness as a weapon is that in a dust or smoke form the material is so finely pulverized that it takes on the characteristic of a quickly dissipating gas and is therefore subject to all the factors (such as wind) working against maintenance of high concentrations for more than a few minutes over a given area." 2) Some of the U.S. Government's Documentation of Harmful Effects of D.U. Weapons Documents provided by the Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (CADU) of UK are cited below to prove the harmful effects of DU : A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) advisory circular by M. C. dated 20 December 1984 warning FAA crash site investigators about encounters with planes laden with depleted uranium, aircraft balance weights at sites, when investigating plane crashes accidents that "if particles are inhaled or ingested, they can be chemically toxic and cause a significant and long-lasting irradiation of internal tissue. On March 7, 1979, the US Army Mobility Equipment, Research and Development Command stated, "Not only the people in the immediate vicinity, emergency and fire fighting personnel, but also people at distances downwind from the fire are faced with potential over exposure to air borne uranium dust." (This was disclosed in accordance with request based on the Freedom of Information Act to the National Gulf War Resources Center by Chris Kornkven, et al.) U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute, in a June 1995 resort to Congress, says depleted uranium has the potential to generate significant medical consequences if it enters the body. The radiation dose to critical organs depends upon the amount of time that depleted uranium resides in the organs. When this value is known or estimated, cancer and hereditary risk estimates can be determined. On May 26 1997, the Nation Magazine published an article about the U.S. Army Armaments, Munitions and Chemical Command (AMCCOM) report in July 1990 that depleted uranium is a low level alpha radiation emitter, which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal, and that chemical toxicity causes kidney damage. Also, AMCCOMfs radiological task group has stated, Long term effects of low doses (of DU) have been implicated in cancercthere is not dose so low that the probability of effect is zero. On August 16, 1993, Col. Robert G. Claypool of the U.S. Army Surgeon Generalfs Office, in a letter, says, "When soldiers inhale or ingest DU dust, they incur a potential increase in cancer risk. The magnitude of that increase can be quantified if the DU intake can be estimated. Expected physiological effects from exposure to DU dust include possible increase in the outbreak of cancer and kidney damage. Health hazards data, (the Materials Safety Data Sheet:MSDS) from the U.S. Department of Labor says that the "(DU) increases the risk of lung carcinoma and chemical toxicity to kidney. Decay products of U-238, U-235, and U-234 are just as hazardous." These documents indicated that before the Gulf War, and even after that, the US Armed Forces and the US government have long been doing investigations repeatedly on the danger of depleted uranium, and the hazards of internal irradiation, and knew fully well about its carcinogenicity and teratogenicity. 3) Testimony of Doug Rokke Doug Rokke was a professor of Physics and Environmental Science at the Jacksonville University, an Army major (Reserve), and in 1994-95 was in charge of the DU Project of the Pentagon. He took the stand and answered questions from the prosecutors of the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan regarding the said project. As to the background of the formation of this DU Project team of the Pentagon, he said, "Commissioned officers from the UK, Australia, Canada and Germany participated in the project to study the risk of DU weapons and I was tasked by the Army to direct the team. The objective of the project was to ensure that adequate information and training to soldiers being deployed to the battlefield are provided by making it clear to them the risks and hazards when DU bomb weapons are used, and to know what kind of countermeasures and precautionary measures should be adopted, and to make proposals as to how to clean up the DU bullets. Also, we submitted recommendations, which were completely ignored. Up to this day, the US Armed Forces the US army has not taken any measures to protect the soldiers." He also mentioned, "We made a proposal that clean-up was essential, but in reality, complete clean-up was impossible. Threfore, we proposed not to use DU weapons any longer. However our proposal was ignored by the upper level of the government and completely ignored by NATO, UK, Australia and others." Furthermore, Doug Rokke said that as part of the DU project, they made several videotapes that were supposed to be produced as videotapes on DU bombs of the Pentagon. "The first one was an advisory on what kind of danger was there when a DU bomb would explode, the second about a manual on when a clean up was being done, and the third one was on how to measure the radiation, and we made clear that a Geiger counter would not be effective in measuring DU bombs. The fourth one was about what kind of equipment should be used in destroying the residue of the DU bomb, and the fifth one was on how to handle dud (unexploded) bombs. These were produced especially for the sake of soldiers who would go on dangerous missions, but in the end, they were never used." he stated. The US started the DU weapon project, but because of the report that was released about the extremely high risk 00 of DU weapons, and recommendation that they should not be used, the results of the researches of the project were classified. Through the proliferation of these information and videos, the hazardous nature of DU weapons had become clear, and the US feared being showered with criticisms by the international community, and that DU weapons would no longer be used ever. This is how, according to Doug Rokke, et al. was their recommendations were ignored, their project dissolved, and why nothing is done ever to protect the soldiers from DU weapons nor provide them with medical care (E56). 4) Awareness on the Violations of International Laws in the US Armed Forces Within the US Armed Forces, they are aware about possible violation of international law regarding the use of this type of weapons being a violation of international laws in addition to awareness of matters of this nature related to the danger of depleted uranium as stated above. The U.S. Air Forcefs 1976 manual titled International Law: The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations" names treaties, including The Hague Conventions of 1907, the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925, and the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War, 1949, and specifically recognized as binding by the US Armed Forces. The Geneva Gas Protocol outlaws asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices, and the Hague Conventions explicitly forbid the use especially of poison or poisoned weapons. The Air Force manual defines poison as "biological or chemical substances causing death or disability with permanent effects when, in even small quantities, they are ingested, enter the lungs or bloodstream, or touch the skin. The manual says, Any weapons may be put to an unlawful use," and unequivocally, A weapon may be illegal per se if either international custom or treaty has forbidden its use under all circumstances. An example is poison to kill or injure a person. The 70's was a period when the US military began a full-scale development and production of DU bombshells. 6. Environmental Pollution by Depleted Uranium (DU) 1) Widespread Radioactive Contamination in Iraq In this war on Iraq, DU weapons are used in large cities and towns starting with Baghdad. Many countries have a limit of public exposure to radiation prescribed by laws based on the recommendation of ICRP set at 1 millisievert per annum, and the quantity of depleted uranium equivalent to this is 11.4 milligrams. The quantity of depleted uranium contained in a 30-milligram DU bomb is 280 grams. One shot of this can emit a radiation surpassing the radiation limit for 25,000 persons per annum by ignition and micronization. In accordance with the on-the-spot investigations conducted by privately-run facilities and scientists, it has been reported that high level radiations are detected from soils surrounding road ditches and inside of building sites where warheads and hulls of these DU bombs have rolled into, and war tanks. The exact amount used is not publicly announced but Michael Kilpatrick, in a forum stated that even with just 115 tons, it would be enough to distribute a dosage per annum of about 100,000,000 people. The depleted uranium has deeply penetrated the life sphere of people. At the conclusion of this war on 6 April 2004, UNEP Executive Director Klaus Toefger said, "UNEP stands ready to conduct early environmental field studies in Iraq. Given the overall environmental concerns during the conflict, and the fact that the environment of Iraq was already a cause for serious concern prior to the current war, UNEP believes early field studies should be carried out (E61). This is especially important to protect human health in a post-conflict situation due to the apparent use of DU weapons in this war. Immediately after that, UNEP published a "desk study on the Iraq environment" that contained information on the risks to groundwater, surface water, drinking water sources, and the scattering of radioactive particles. The report of the British Royal Society in 2002 also predicts that due to depleted uranium, the radioactive contamination, after the conflict, will gradually permeate the soil and water sources in the years ahead. 2) The Development of the Idea of Environmental Protection The present global environment was formed from even before the human race appeared on earth, and human race has evolved by conforming and adapting to it. However, the rapid development of scientific technology by the pursuit for comfort and convenience brought about the destruction of the ecosystem, and global environmental pollution, and that has caused the situation where the very existence of mankind is now in imminent danger. Amidst this situation, in 1971, the United Nations convened its first international conference with the environment for its theme; The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, and adopted the "Declaration of the United Nations Conference of the Human Environment." In the declaration are expressed the ideals that "both aspects of man's environment, the natural and the man-made, are essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights the right to life itself," "All countries, organizations and individuals at every level, all sharing equitably in common efforts, to achieve this environmental goal will demand the acceptance of responsibility and by their values and the sum of their actions, will shape the world environment of the future," and "all countries shall bear the responsibility that their respective countries will not cause damage to the regional environment of another country." The deepening and development of the environmental ideology was derived from movements@attempting to regulate the environmental destruction brought about by the war. The treaty on the prohibition of military and other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, which was approved in 1976, prohibits the military use of environmental modification technique ((any technique for changing through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes the dynamics, composition, or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere, or of outer space) likely to have widespread, long-lasting and also severe effects as a means to cause destruction, damage and also injury. Simultaneously, Supplementary Protocol of the Geneva Conventions also came into effect, and stipulated that "it is prohibited to use as means or method of combat intending or predicting to inflict widespread, long-lasting, and severe injury." 3) Precautionary Principle However, without limiting it to the conduct of war, the technique and knowledge of being able to predict exactly how much effect modern activities of men associated with progress of technology to the environment cannot be established at present. Consequently, the idea about the "precautionary principle" emerged in the middle of international conferences and treaties regarding environment. At the United Nations Conference on Environment of 1992, in the "Rio Declaration," with regard to the Precautionary Principle, it specifies, "In order to protect the environment, In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." To prioritize this principle, it is not difficult to imagine the fact about seeking profit or causing the stagnation of researches, and for that, there will be a deep-rooted opposition to enterprise, etc., and there will be a division of opinions between nations. However, irrevocable environmental problems on the global scale such as ecosystem abnormalities, etc. causing global warming and endocrine disrupting substance have extensively been observed, and in 2000, an EU Commission set forth the policy called "to standardize the Precautionary Principle regarding environmental problems." We, human being, who have repeatedly polluted and destroyed the environment for the sake of profit and greed and lack of foresight, have come to this stage, and while at the same time there is the issue of protecting our fundamental human rights and preservation of the ecosystem, that may motivate us to start taking notice at last of our important responsibility to the future. Regarding this problem, scientists and specialist of capitalist countries have been playing a great role, and concentrating their efforts in promoting the Precautionary Principle by publishing their statements in the Wingspread Conference of 1998 or the International Conference regarding Science and Precautionary Principle in 2001. While they are still a minority, they have had influence in policy making. An ordinance adopted by the City of San Francisco in California is an example. Also, hereafter, there will be a need for the citizens to join hands and furthermore, to uphold the precautionary principle. Here at last, mankind has recognized the need for voluntary restraints as a common duty and responsibility in order to prevent the complete destruction of the environment because people have become heedless of the environment, concerned only in making profits, and selfish in their attitude and mentality. The conceptualization of that is the "precautionary principle, and we should bear in mind to take upon ourselves the responsibility to continue to affirm that this will become a basic idology of mankind regarding the protection of the environment, and also to exert effort to observe it. We believe that we should perceive the precautionary principle as something to deepen and develop an international humanitarian law and naturally apply it even to the conduct of war. The stipulation in the treaties and supplemental protocols stated previously to ban "the ways and means of military combat forecasted to cause widespread, long-lasting and severe effect and injury to the environment, should be applied at a time when some conduct is foreseen to have possible grave impact on the environment for the sake of actually demonstrating its valid restraining force.@To put it plainly, the use of DU weapons, which has been dispersing the radioactivity that has possible grave impact on the ecosystem, is an apparent illegal act if the international humanitarian law in the context of this historical development of environmental protection achieved by the precautionary principle is understood. 4) The Crime of the Omnicide On the other hand, at the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan, a judgment has been passed that states that the use of DU weapons is an act that means a threat to the existence of even neighboring countries of the whole region, extinction of all life-forms, pollution of the air, water and food resources, or the irreversible alteration of genetic mutation of all life forms including vegetation, or in other words, it constitutes an omnicidal crime (E66). This is a fact that focuses attention to the danger of depleted uranium said to affect the ecosystem, and the use of that is perceived to be an act of large-scale massacre of all life forms on earth. The failure to pursue the criminality of that by reason that the effect to the environment of DU weapons is not sufficiently established has unavoidably fostered the use and production of this kind of weapons of destruction of the environment. That is going against the tide of history of the formation of the precautionary principle stated previously, and even in times of war, in order to make the precautionary principle effectively functional, some regulation of criminal punishment in case of violations to that principle is necessary. As a basis of culpability of an act of violation, there is the omnicide, and the urgent establishment of this concept is much desired. Even for the sake of making the international human law to function effectively hereafter, there is a need for assimilating the concept called "omnicide" with the precautionary principle in the environmental sphere. For this reason likewise, in this place, we denounce the use of DU weapons as a violation of international laws, and thereby strongly appeal for banning their use. 7. The use of DU Weapons As An Evident War Crime and A Crime Against Humanity That the use of DU weapons is an illegal act in violation of International Humanitarian Law is evidently clear. The International Humanitarian Law is not something that will legalize directly the use of those weapons, even in a case when there is no explicit regulation to immediately regulate individual weapons, but it has manifested the necessity for compliance to _1 a principle of prohibition of the means of causing unnecessary agony and uselessly aggravating the sufferings of disabled combatants; _2 the principle of prohibition of the destruction of non-military objects; _3 the principle of prohibition of weapons of mass destruction. However, as previously mentioned, the uranium pollution due to DU weapons has high lethality, and the unnecessary suffering inflicted indiscriminately on people regardless of whether one is an enemy or an ally, the continuous toxicity even after the war, and the calamity it is likely to bring to future posterity are clear indications of their potency to be indiscriminate, and the fact that this kind of weapons have been used in densely populated areas, including Baghdad regardless of whether it is a military object or a non-military object, shows that the American and British Armed Forces have evidently violated all the 3 above-mentioned principles. 1) Crime Against Humanity The use of DU weapons by the American and British Armed Forces is an attack to murder people, plunge them into a state of deep suffering, noticeably obstruct, wreck and steal the health due to the genetic disorder, and the long-lasting destruction of the environment, due to widespread uranium pollution in all the nation of Iraq, is an "inhumane act committed as part of a widespread attack or a systematic attack on civilians in an armed conflict" (Article 4 of the Official Regulations and Article 7 of ICC), and both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, as Commanders-in-Chief, are criminally accountable for these crimes against humanity (Article 7 of the Official Regulations Article, and Article 7.a of the ICC). 2) War Crimes Also, this is clearly an unforgivable war stipulated (in Articles 2a, d, m and p and Article 2a, b of ICC) as "an attack intentionally carried out while those involved are fully aware of the collaterally long-lasting serious damages to the natural environment, "poison and toxic weapons are used" "weapons that have the quality to inflict serious injury and unnecessary suffering or have the quality to be indiscriminate are used," and both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, as Commanders in Chief, are criminally accountable for war crimes (Article 4 of the Official Regulation and Article 2,.a of ICC). Long before this, The UN Human Rights Subcommittee in August 1996 adopted a resolution that the use of DU weapons constituting a violation, as a weapon of mass destruction, should be banned. Also, in July 2003, a report by Yeung Sik Yuen submitted to the UN Human Rights Subcommittee, showed strong concern on the adverse effect to health, and environment pollution due to DU weapons aside from the fact that "the use of DU weapons is a violation of international laws, can inflict unnecessary suffering and serious injuries, and can be a real menace to the environment, and by all mean must be banned," and concluded that these weapons (including DU weapons), regardless of whether they are explicitly banned or not, should be prohibited." Also, in this argument, it was emphasized that states that have used this weapons in violation of international laws are accountable for compensation for and decontamination of such deadly weapons. Not only the UN Human Rights Subcommittee but also other organizations as well like the European Union Parliament have adopted resolutions to address this issue. In February 2003, the European Union Parliament adopted the "Resolution on the Harmful Effects of DU Bombs and Unexploded Bombs, and demanded the European Commission to monitor developments in relation to the possible serious, widespread contamination of the environment believed to be due to DU weapons and to support independent and thorough investigations into the possible harmful effects of the use of depleted uranium ammunition . In this manner, the international sentiment on the banning of the use of DU weapons has gained momentum, and in the midst of an awareness to observe international law, the use of DU weapons by the British and American Armed Forces is nothing but a profanity against international law that the international community and hitherto the human race has fostered. The whole nation of Iraq has become a testing ground for these weapons where sophisticated technology are freely used including DU weapons, and by such use, the people of Iraq once again have been made to bear the pain and suffering of a fate of a semi-permanent DU pollution. In the arguments expressed during the public trial of the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan, the use of DU weapons was declared a crime of omnicide (the destruction of all life-forms) for the threat on the survival of not only the country damaged by this use but also neighboring countries, the extinction of life, the contamination of the air, water and food resources, and also, including vegetation, the irreversible alteration of genetic information of all life-forms. In this regard, the fact that DU weapons are being used deprives all life forms that have been born into this world the right to exist to the fullest, and it is an unforgivable crime against all living things. Thus, with conviction, we prosecute the accused, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, for the abovementioned crimes, and immediately seek compensation for all the victims, and the removal of radiation pollution. Also, we hereby affirm that all nations should be legally obligated to ban the use, storage, production and transfer of DU ammunition; that we as human beings have the mission to have treaties concluded and ratified for the execution of those duties; and we affirm that through our collective efforts, we should be able to achieve creating an earth, where there will no longer be any victim hereafter. ---- World Tribunal: Findings Of Jury of Conscience Tuesday, 28 June 2005, 12:49 pm Scoop http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0506/S00484.htm Press Release: World Tribunal on Iraq World Tribunal on Iraq - http://www.worldtribunal.org/ Monday 27 June 2005 From: http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=93 The attack on Iraq is an attack on justice, on liberty, on our safety, on our future, on us all - The Jury of Conscience Istanbul, 27 June, 2005 - With a Jury of Conscience from 10 different countries hearing the testimonies of 54 members of the Panel of Advocates who came from across the world, including Iraq, the United States and the United Kingdom, this global civil initiative came to an end with a press conference at the Hotel Armada where the chair of the Jury of Conscience, Arundathi Roy, announced the Jury's conclusions. The Jury defined this war as one of the most unjust in history: 'The Bush and Blair administrations blatantly ignored the massive opposition to the war expressed by millions of people around the world. They embarked upon one of the most unjust, immoral, and cowardly wars in history. The Anglo-American occupation of Iraq of the last 27 months has led to the destruction and devastation of the Iraqi state and society. Law and order have broken down completely, resulting in a pervasive lack of human security; the physical infrastructure is in shambles; the health care delivery system is a mess; the education system has ceased to function; there is massive environmental and ecological devastation; and, the cultural and archeological heritage of the Iraqi people has been desecrated.' On the basis of the preceding findings and recalling the Charter of the United Nations and other legal documents, the jury has established the following charges against the Governments of the US and the UK: 1. Planning, preparing, and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles. 2. Targeting the civilian population of Iraq and civilian infrastructure 3. Using disproportionate force and indiscriminate weapon systems 4. Failing to safeguard the lives of civilians during military activities and during the occupation period thereafter 5. Using deadly violence against peaceful protestors 6. Imposing punishments without charge or trial, including collective punishment 7. Subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment 8. Re-writing the laws of a country that has been illegally invaded and occupied 9. Willfully devastating the environment 10. Actively creating conditions under which the status of Iraqi women has seriously been degraded 11. Failing to protect humanity's rich archaeological and cultural heritage in Iraq 12. Obstructing the right to information, including the censoring of Iraqi media 13. Redefining torture in violation of international law, to allow use of torture and illegal detentions The Jury also established charges against the Security Council of United Nations for failing to stop war crimes and crimes against humanity among other failures, against the Governments of the Coalition of the Willing for collaborating in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, against the Governments of Other Countries for allowing the use of military bases and air space and providing other logistical support, against Private Corporations for profiting from the war, against the Major Corporate Media for disseminating deliberate falsehoods and failing to report atrocities. The Jury also provided a number of recommendations that include recognising the right of the Iraqi people to resist the illegal occupation of their country and to develop independent institutions, and affirming that the right to resist the occupation is the right to wage a struggle for self-determination, freedom, and independence as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, we the Jury of Conscience declare our solidarity with the people of Iraq and the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the coalition forces from Iraq. The Istanbul session of the WTI lasted three days and presented testimony on the illegality and criminal violations in the U.S. pretexts for and conduct of this war. The expert opinion, witness testimony, video and image evidence addressed the impact of war on civilians, the torture of prisoners, the unlawful imprisonment of Iraqis without charges or legal defence, the use of depleted uranium weapons, the effects of the war on Iraq's infrastructure, the destruction of Iraqi cultural institutions and the liability of the invaders in international law for failing to protect these treasures of humanity. The session in Istanbul was the culminating session of commissions of inquiry and hearings held around the world over the past two years. Sessions on different topics related to the war on Iraq were held in London, Mumbai, Copenhagen, Brussels, New York, Japan, Stockholm, South Korea, Rome, Frankfurt, Geneva, Lisbon and Spain. They have compiled a definitive historical record of evidence on the illegality of the invasion and occupation that will be recorded in a forthcoming book. ************** Preliminary Declaration of the Jury of Conscience World Tribunal on Iraq World Tribunal on Iraq - http://www.worldtribunal.org/ Istanbul 27th June 2005, Istanbul From: http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=91 In February 2003, weeks before war was declared on Iraq, millions of people protested in the streets of the world. That call went unheeded. No international institution had the courage or conscience to stand up to the aggression of the US and UK governments. No one could stop them. It is two years later now. Iraq has been invaded, occupied, and devastated. The attack on Iraq is an attack on justice, on liberty, on our safety, on our future, on us all. We the people of conscience decided to stand up. We formed the World Tribunal on Iraq, to demand justice and a peaceful future. The legitimacy of the World Tribunal on Iraq is located in the collective conscience of humanity. This, the Istanbul session, was the culmination of a series of 20 hearings held in different cities of the world focusing on the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. We the Jury of Conscience, from 10 different countries, met in Istanbul. We heard 54 testimonies from a panel of advocates and witnesses who came from across the world, including from Iraq, the United States and the United Kingdom. The World Tribunal on Iraq met in Istanbul from 24-26th of June 2005. The principal objective of the WTI is to tell the truth about the Iraq war as clearly as possible, and to draw conclusions that underscore the accountability of those responsible and underline the significance of justice for the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein's crimes against his people are not the focus of this Tribunal. We believe it is up to the Iraqi people to investigate these crimes in an independent and free trial. I. Overview 1. The reasons given by the US and UK governments for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003 have proven to be false. The real motive was to control and dominate the Middle East. Establishing hegemony over the Middle East serves the goal of controlling the world's largest reserves of oil and strengthening the position of the US's strategic ally Israel. 2. Blatant falsehoods about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and a link between Al Qaeda terrorism and the Saddam Hussein rgime were manufactured in order to create public support for a "preemptive" assault upon a sovereign independent nation. 3. Iraq has been under siege for years. The imposition of severe inhuman economic sanctions at the end of the first Gulf war in 1991; the establishment of no-fly zones in the Northern and Southern parts of Iraq; and the concomitant bombing of the country were all aimed at degrading and weakening Iraq's human and material resources and capacities in order to facilitate its subsequent invasion and occupation. In this enterprise the US and British leaderships had the endorsement of a complicit UN Security Council. 4. In pursuit of their agenda of empire, the Bush and Blair blatantly ignored the massive opposition to the war expressed by millions of people around the world. They embarked upon one of the most unjust, immoral, and cowardly wars in history. 5. The Anglo-American occupation of Iraq of the last 27 months has led to the destruction and devastation of the Iraqi state and society. Law and order have broken down completely, resulting in a pervasive lack of human security; the physical infrastructure is in shambles; the health care delivery system is a mess; the education system has ceased to function; there is massive environmental and ecological devastation; and, the cultural and archeological heritage of the Iraqi people has been desecrated. 6. The occupation has intentionally exacerbated ethnic and confessionnal divisions in Iraqi society, with the aim of undermining Iraq's identity and integrity as a nation. This is in keeping with the fam liar imperial policy of divide and rule. 7. The imposition of the UN sanctions in 1991 caused untold suffering and thousands of deaths. The situation has worsened after the occupation. At least 100,000 civilians have been killed; 60,000 are being held in US custody in inhuman conditions, without charges; thousands have disappeared; and torture has become virtually routine. 8. The privatization, deregulation, and liberalization of the Iraqi economy has transformed the country into a client economy that serves the Washington Consensus. The occupying forces have also accomplished their primary goal of acquired control over the nation's oil. 9. Any law or institution created under the aegis of occupation is devoid of both legal and moral authority. The recently concluded election, the Constituent Assembly, the current government, and the drafting committee for the Constitution are therefore all illegitimate. 10. There is widespread opposition to the occupation. Political, social, and civil resistance through peaceful means is subjected to repression by the occupying forces. It is the brutality of the occupation that has provoked a strong armed resistance and certain acts of desperation. By the principles embodied in the UN Charter and in international law, the popular national resistance to the occupation is legitimate and justified. It deserves the support of people everywhere who care for justice and freedom. II. Findings and Charges On the basis of the preceding findings and recalling the Charter of the United Nations and other legal documents quoted in the appendix, the jury has established the following charges. A. Against the Governments of the US and the UK 1. Planning, preparing, and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles. Evidence for this can be found in the leaked Downing Street Memo of 23rd July, 2002 in which it was revealed that: "military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy." Intelligence was manufactured to willfully deceive the people of the US, the UK, and their elected representatives. 2. Targeting the civilian population of Iraq and civilian infrastructure, by intentionally directing attacks upon civilians and hospitals, medical centers, residential neighborhoods, electricity stations, and water purification facilities in violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR"), Articles 7(1)(a), 8(2)(a)(i), and 8(2)(b)(i). The complete destruction of the city of Falluja in itself constitutes a glaring example of such crimes. 3. Using disproportionate force and indiscriminate weapon systems, such as cluster munitions, incendiary bombs, depleted uranium (DU), and chemical weapons. Detailed evidence was presented to the Tribunal by expert witnesses that leukemia had risen sharply in children under the age of five residing in those areas which had been targeted by DU weapons. 4. Failing to safeguard the lives of civilians during military activities and during the occupation period thereafter, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Articles 13 and 27, and the ICC Statute, Articles 7 (1)(a) and 8(2)(a)(i). This is evidenced, for example, by "shock and awe" bombing techniques and the conduct of occupying forces at checkpoints. 5. Using deadly violence against peaceful protestors, beginning with, among others, the April 2003 killing of more than a dozen peaceful protestors in Falluja. 6. Imposing punishments without charge or trial, including collective punishment, on the people of Iraq, in violation of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Geneva Conventions, and customary international law requiring due process. Repeated testimonies pointed to "snatch and grab" operations, disappearances, and assassinations. 7. Subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the ICCPR, other treaties and covenants, and customary international law. Degrading treatment includes subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to acts of racial, ethnic, religious, and gender discrimination, as well as denying Iraqi soldiers Prisoner of War status as required by the Geneva Convention. Abundant testimony was provided of unlawful arrests and detentions, without due process of law. Well known and egregious examples occurred in Abu Ghraib prison as well as in Mosul, Camp Bucca, and Basra. The employment of mercenaries and private contractors to carry out torture has served to undermine accountability. 8. Re-writing the laws of a country that has been illegally invaded and occupied, in violation of international covenants on the responsibilities of occupying powers, in order to amass illegal profits (through such measures as Order 39, signed by L. Paul Bremer III for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which allows foreign investors to buy and takeover Iraq's state-owned enterprises and to repatriate 100 percent of their profits and assets at any point) and to control Iraq's oil. Evidence listed a number of corporations that had profited from such transactions. 9. Willfully devastating the environment, contaminating it by depleted uranium (DU) weapons, combined with the plumes from burning oil wells, as well as huge oil spills, and destroying agricultural lands. Deliberately disrupting the water and waste removal systems, in a manner verging on biological-chemical warfare. Failing to prevent the looting and dispersal of radioactive material from nuclear sites. Extensive documentation is available on air, water pollution, land degradation, and radiological pollution. 10. Actively creating conditions under which the status of Iraqi women has seriously been degraded contrary, to the repeated claims of the leaders of the coalition forces. Women's freedom of movement has been severely limited, restricting their access to education, livelihood, and social engagement. Testimony was provided that sexual violence and sex trafficking have increased since the occupation of Iraq began. 11. Failing to protect humanity's rich archaeological and cultural heritage in Iraq, by allowing the looting of museums and established historical sites and positioning military bases in culturally and archeologically sensitive locations. This took place despite prior warnings from UNESCO and Iraqi museum officials. 12. Obstructing the right to information, including the censoring of Iraqi media, such as newspapers (e.g., al-Hawza, al-Mashriq, and al-Mustaqila) and radio stations (Baghdad Radio), targeting international journalists, imprisoning and killing academics, intellectuals and scientists. 13. Redefining torture in violation of international law, to allow use of torture and illegal detentions, including holding more than 500 people at Guantnamo Bay without charging them or allowing them any access to legal protection, and using "extraordinary renditions" to send people to torture in other countries known to commit human rights abuses and torture prisoners. B. Against the Security Council of United Nations 1. Failing to protect Iraq against a crime of aggression. 2. Imposing harsh economic sanctions on Iraq, despite knowledge that sanctions were directly contributing to the massive loss of civilian lives and harming innocent civilians. 3. Allowing the United States and United Kingdom to carry out illegal bombings in the no-fly zones, using false pretense of enforcing UN resolutions, and at no point allowing discussion in the Security Council of this violation, and thereby being complicit and responsible for loss of civilian life and destruction of Iraqi infrastructure. 4. Allowing the United States to dominate the United Nations and hold itself above any accountability by other member nations. 5. Failure to stop war crimes and crimes against humanity by the United States and its coalition partners in Iraq. 6. Failure to hold the United States and its coalition partners accountable for violations of international law during the occupation, and giving official recognition to the occupation, thereby legitimizing an illegal invasion and becoming a collaborator in an illegal occupation. C. Against the Governments of the Coalition of the Willing Collaborating in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. D. Against the Governments of Other Countries Allowing the use of military bases and air space, and providing other logistical support, for the invasion and occupation. E. Against Private Corporations Profiting from the war with complicity in the crimes described above, of invasion and occupation. F. Against the Major Corporate Media 1. Disseminating the deliberate falsehoods spread by the governments of the US and the UK and failing to adequately investigate this misinformation. This even in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary. Among the corporate media houses that bear special responsibility for promoting the lies about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, we name the New York Times, in particular their reporter Judith Miller, whose main source was on the payroll of the CIA. We also name Fox News, CNN and the BBC. 2. Failing to report the atrocities being committed against Iraqi people by the occupying forces. III. Recommendations Recognising the right of the Iraqi people to resist the illegal occupation of their country and to develop independent institutions, and affirming that the right to resist the occupation is the right to wage a struggle for self-determination, freedom, and independence as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, we the Jury of Conscience declare our solidarity with the people of Iraq. We recommend: 1. The immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the coalition forces from Iraq; 2. That coalition governments make war reparations and pay compensation to Iraq for the humanitarian, economic, ecological, and cultural devastation they have caused by their illegal invasion and occupation; 3. That all laws, contracts, treaties, and institutions established under occupation which the Iraqi people deem inimical to their interests, should be considered null and void; 4. That the Guantanamo Bay prison and all other offshore US military prisons be closed immediately; that the names of the prisoners be disclosed, that they receive POW status, and receive due process; 5. That there be an exhaustive investigation of those responsible for crimes of aggression and crimes against humanity in Iraq, beginning with George W. Bush, President of the United States of America; Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; and other government officials from the coalition of the willing; 6. That we initiate a process of accountability to hold those morally and personally responsible for their participation in this illegal war, such as journalists who deliberately lied, corporate media outlets that promoted racial, ethnic and religious hatred, and CEOs of multinational corporations that profited from this war; 7. That people throughout the world launch actions against US and UK corporations that directly profit from this war. Examples of such corporations include Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle, CACI Inc., Titan Corporation, Kellog, Brown and Root (subsidiary of Halliburton), DynCorp, Boeing, ExxonMobil, Texaco, British Petroleum. The following companies have sued Iraq and received "reparation awards": Toys R Us, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Shell, Nestl, Pepsi, Phillip Morris, Sheraton, Mobil. Such actions may take the form of direct actions such as shutting down their offices, consumer boycotts, and pressure on shareholders to divest. 8. That soldiers exercise conscience and refuse to enlist and participate in an illegal war. Also that countries provide conscientious objectors political asylum. 9. That the international campaign for dismantling all US military bases abroad be reinforced. 10. That people around the world resist and reject any effort by any of their governments to provide material, logistical, or moral support to the occupation of Iraq. We, the Jury of Conscience, hope that the specificity of these recommendations will lay the groundwork required for a world where the international institutions will be shaped and reshaped by the will of people and not fear and self-interest, where journalists and intellectuals will not remain mute, where the will of the people of the world will be central, and human security will prevail over state security and corporate profits. Appendix: List of Legal Documents The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) The Convention on the Political Rights of Women (1952) The Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959) The Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1963) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) The Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979) The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) The American Convention on Human Rights (1969) The Code of Conduct for the Armed Forces of the United States of America (1963) -------- europe International Consortium Chooses France as Site for Nuclear Fusion Reactor June 28, 2005 By Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=8087 MOSCOW A six-party consortium chose France as the site for an experimental nuclear fusion reactor, a spokeswoman for the European Union said Tuesday, opening the way for development of a potential source of clean, inexhaustible energy. Antonia Mochan, spokeswoman for the European Commission's science and research committee, said the decision was made in Moscow at a closed-door meeting of the consortium. The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor is intended to show that nuclear fusion, which harnesses the same energy that heats the sun to generate electricity, can wean the world off pollution-producing fossil fuels. Nuclear fusion produces no greenhouse gas emissions and only low levels of radioactive waste. "As a project of unprecedented complexity spanning more than a generation, ITER marks a major step forward international science cooperation," EU Research Commissioner Janez Potocnik said. "Now that we have reached consensus on the site for ITER, we will make all efforts to finalize the agreement on the project, so that construction can begin as soon as possible," Potocnik said. The project is funded by a consortium comprised of Japan, the United States, South Korea, Russia, China and the European Union, but the six parties had been divided over where to put the test reactor. Competition was intense. At stake are billions of dollars (euros) worth of research funding, construction and engineering contracts, and the creation of up to 100,000 new jobs, according to estimates cited by Dow Jones NewsWires. Japan, the United States and South Korea wanted the facility built at Rokkasho in northern Japan. Russia, China and the European Union wanted it at Cadarache, in southern France. "This is a great success for France, for Europe and for all of the partners in the ITER," French President Jacques Chirac said in a statement issued by his office minutes after the announcement in Moscow. "The international community will now be able to take on an unprecedented scientific and technological challenge, which opens great hopes for providing humanity with an energy that has no impact on the environment and is practically inexhaustible," he said. Japanese newspaper reports had said Tokyo was prepared to give up hosting the US$13 billion (euro10.8 billion) ITER project in return for a bigger research and operations role in the project. The deal concluded Tuesday assured Tokyo of that role. "Japan is happy and sad at the same time. We decided to overcome the sorrow and turn the sorrow into joy. Japan in the future will be ready to make contribution to the development of fusion energy," said Nariaki Nakayama, Japan's minister for science and culture. Some scientists have warned that both sites are in seismically active zones and could be prone to earth tremors. ---- France to build nuclear fusion reactor June 28, 2005. 11:29pm (AEST) Australian Broadcasting http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1402693.htm France has won the right to build a $16 billion experimental nuclear fusion reactor. The reactor is seen as the next step towards harnessing nuclear fusion, the source of the sun's energy. The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor will be built in southern France, near Marseille. Construction should start later this year, and experiments in ten years' time. European Commissioner for Science and Research, Janez Potocnik, says fusion opens new doors in the search for the world's energy needs. "We're all searching for an answer to a proper energy mix of the future," he said. "We want to get a sustainable source, we want to get something which would be environmentally friendly. "Fusion is one of the possibilities." ---- France Chosen To Host Experimental Fusion Reactor Project By Breffni O'Rourke Tuesday, 28 June 2005 Radio Free Europe http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/06/3c7f3bf0-90a3-4a6a-9f9e-721b8335e4a3.html France has been chosen to host a multibillion-dollar experimental nuclear-fusion reactor. The decision was made today in Moscow by representatives of six parties involved in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project -- Russia, Japan, the United States, the European Union, China, and South Korea. The project is expected to cost up to $13 billion to develop. Nuclear fusion is a process that is being seen as mankind's bright new hope for boundless sources of clean energy. Some environmentalists doubt the true benefits of fusion, however. Prague, 28 June 2005 (RFE/RL) -- French President Jacques Chirac says he is delighted by today's decision, calling it a big success for France. The experimental fusion reactor will be constructed at Cadarache in southern France. It will be used to demonstrate whether nuclear fusion presents a vast and safe source of energy that could reduce the world's reliance on pollution- producing fossil fuels. Speaking in Brussels, Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen, a spokeswoman for the European Commission, said construction on the plant could begin by the end of 2005. "Now we can complete the final technical agreement for the project and start construction as soon as possible," Hansen said. "We hope that it will be by the end of this year. And we are, of course, extremely pleased that we were able to find a solution that allows this project to move forward with the full cooperation from the international research community." The threat of global warming is bringing nuclear power, long out of favor, back into focus as a way of generating energy. The present nuclear-power process is based on fission, but many scientists have lain hopes on the process of fusion. Fission is a process that leaves tons of hazardous radioactive waste, which can remain dangerous for eons. That's its Achilles' heel, along with the potential danger of accident, as happened with the Chornobyl disaster in 1986. Fusion, on the other hand, leaves only grams of residue, and then only if impurities have crept into the process. With optimal design, no radioactive detritus at all remains. Scientist Jaap van der Laan of the Netherlands Energy Research Center says fusion is the "green" version of nuclear-power generation. "Essentially, although you can describe fusion as a nuclear technology, which of course it is, it's a 'greener' form of nuclear energy than fission, and remains emission-free," he said. What exactly is fusion? It occurs when lightweight atoms are fused together to make heavier atoms. To use this reaction as an energy source, a gaseous fuel must be heated to a temperature of more than 100 million degrees. At these temperatures, the gas becomes a plasma, and the plasma particles, deuterium and tritium, fuse together to form helium and high-speed neutrons. That releases energy, which can be used to generate electricity. As such temperatures are far too high to be held by any container, one operating scenario calls for the hot plasma to be contained within a magnetic field. That would keep it constantly in looping paths that would not touch the walls of the container. "A fusion reactor with its extreme neutron flux would be the ultimate tool to breed weapons-grade plutonium, or from thorium you could produce uranium, which could be used to produce nuclear weapons." - van der Putte That is the basic idea. It has yet to be seen whether it is a practical process, hence the need for an experimental reactor. The six parties involved in the project -- the European Union, the United States, China, Japan, Canada, and Russia -- will pool their expertise to build the first fusion reactor. Today's decision to build the reactor in France follows more than a year of wrangling. The project's supporters say the prize is worth the effort. They say 1 kilogram of fusion fuel would produce the same amount of energy as 10 million kilograms of fossil fuel. But environmentalists are far from convinced. Greenpeace nuclear expert Jan van der Putte says the clean-burning fusion does in fact leave a pollution footprint. "As to radioactive waste, you have large volumes generated, because you have a very, very aggressive neutron flux in the reactor, and all the steel which surrounds the plasma is bombarded continuously with an extremely hard neutron flux and is deteriorating rather quickly, so many [radioactive] steel pieces need to be replaced very regularly," he said. And van der Putte says there is another major drawback -- namely the way fusion reactors could add to the dangers of nuclear-arms proliferation. "A fusion reactor with its extreme neutron flux would be the ultimate tool to breed weapons-grade plutonium, or from thorium you could produce uranium, which could be used to produce nuclear weapons," he said. Environmentalists, like van der Putte, instead prefer simpler energy-developing processes closer to nature, like solar power, wind power, and tide power. He says their technologies are proven, and are practical today. He says that in Europe, wind power already produces the same output as two to three fission reactors. However, scientist van der Laan disputes the likelihood that these ecological technologies can serve the mainstream. He says China, India, and Brazil, which are presently poor developing countries but will be big energy consumers later this century, are particularly interested in fusion. ---- The future of nuclear energy: a boost for plasma physics at EPFL Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL) 28.06.2005 http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/physics_astronomy/report-45915.html The Six Parties of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) consortium have reached a decision in their negotiations, specifying the location of the worlds first energy-producing fusion reactor in Cadarache, in Southern France. The 10 billion project will generate multiple research opportunities for the Plasma Physics Research Centre at the Ecole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne (EPFL). ITERs future location in Cadarache will be doubly beneficial to EPFL. In its role as a National Centre of Competence, The Plasma Physics Research Centre (CRPP) is fully integrated with the nuclear fusion research programs within the Euratom-Swiss Confederation framework. CRPP will thus be called upon to participate in various specialized, high technology facets of the reactors construction. This level of participation will confirm and solidify CRPPs reputation in the plasma physics community. Minh Quang Tran, director of the Centre, also holds a position as president of the European Fusion Development Agreement, the organization that coordinates all fusion-related technology as well as all work involving the JET (Joint European Torus), a intermediate-generation tokamak-type experimental fusion reactor. The synergies that will develop in this research environment will reinforce the links between EPFL and the main European centers of fusion research excellence, in their common quest for a new and promising means of safe, efficient and sufficient energy production, notes Tran. As a key player in this international involvement, Switzerland also stands to benefit in a larger sense from industrial spin-offs that will result from the project. An enormous energy potential Nuclear fusion represents a practically unlimited source of energy. Under extremely high pressures and temperatures, light atoms isotopes of hydrogen, such as deuterium and tritiumcome together, or fuse, producing enormous amounts of energy. A prime example is the Sun, where huge gravitational pressure allows fusion to take place at about 10 million degrees Celsius. At the gravitational pressure we experience on Earth, higher temperatures are required to generate fusion, and to date only tokamak-type reactors are capable of reaching the 100 million-degree-Celsius threshold where energy can be produced. In the last several years, considerable technological progress has been made in fusion research, leading to high expectations for the ITER. With this reactor, studies done at the CRPP and elsewhere on the feasibility and functioning of a nuclear fusion-based centre of electricity production can be brought to a successful conclusion, and the groundwork can be laid for the first prototype commercial fusion reactor. Up to this point energy-producing nuclear reactors have used fission, not fusion, to generate energy. Fusion reactors have important advantages; power stations will be inherently safe because meltdown or runaway reactions cannot occur, and these reactors do not generate long-lasting radioactive waste. Fusion reactors dont emit greenhouse gases, and the basic fuels hydrogen and lithium are abundant and available everywhere. The energy production of ITER will be unprecedented: a single gram of deuterium fused with one and a half grams of tritium will produce ten million times as much energy as a gram of oil. The successful launch of these new technologies in the ITER reactor will set the stage for the successful use of fusion as an inexhaustible and sustainable energy source. More information: http://www.epfl.ch ---- France to host multi-billion-dollar ITER nuclear energy reactor MOSCOW (AFP) Jun 28, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050628073847.pes9rq2c.html The six partners in the revolutionary ITER nuclear energy reactor Tuesday agreed that France would host the multi-billion-dollar project, which is designed to emulate the power of the sun. "Under this declaration, France is chosen as the site," said Antonia Mochane, spokeswoman for EU Science and Research Commissioner Janez Potocnik. Japan earlier withdrew its bid to host the 10-billion-euro (12-billion-dollar) project, clearing the way for the site of Cadarache, in southern France. Its backers hope that ITER will provide a cheap, clean and safe way to meet the world's future energy needs. The project seeks to harness nuclear fusion, the same principle that powers the Sun and the stars, instead of splitting the atom -- the principle behind the atomic bomb and present-day nuclear plants. The six partners in the project are the European Union, the United States, Russia, Japan, South Korea and China. ---- U.S. Statements on International Fusion Reactor (ITER) Siting Decision June 28, 2005 US Department of Energy http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?PUBLIC_ID=18241&BT_CODE=PR_PRESSRELEASES&TT_CODE=PRESSRELEASE WASHINGTON, DC Today in Moscow, Russia, the ministers representing the six ITER parties, including Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director of the U.S. Department of Energys Office of Science, announced the ITER international fusion reactor will be located at the EU site in Cadarache, France. Below are statements by U.S. government officials following the signing of the agreement at the Ministerial Meeting. The text of the announcement by the six parties is available at http://www.iter.org/index_newsroom.htm. Statement by U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman: Plentiful, reliable energy is critical to continued worldwide economic development. Fusion technologies have the potential to transform how energy is produced and provide significant amounts of safe, environmentally-friendly power in the future. The ITER project will make this vision a reality. Statement by DOE Office of Science Director Raymond L. Orbach, who represented the United States at the Ministerial Meeting: The United States supports the decision of the parties to the ITER negotiations to conduct the international fusion reaction experiment at Cadarache, France, and the U.S. looks forward to getting ITER construction there underway as soon as practical. It boded well for ITER that there were two serviceable sites and six parties committed to this important fusion project. Now that the partners have agreed on a site, the ITER negotiations must also resolve an agreed-upon financial and procurement arrangement, together with a satisfactory management and oversight arrangement. In these negotiations, the U.S. will continue to strive for a robust management structure and an oversight program based on the principles of equity, accountability and transparency to ensure both the success of the project and the best use of taxpayer dollars. Fulfilling the promise of ITER will require continued international collaboration and cooperation such as that demonstrated by the six parties to the ITER talks in arriving at todays decision. NOTE: Dr. Orbach will be available to speak with reporters by phone at 12 p.m.Eastern today. Reporters should call the DOE press office at 202/586-5806 for details about the conference call. The text of Dr. Orbachs prepared remarks at the Ministerial Meeting is available at: http://www.sc.doe.gov Background: President Bush announced on January 30, 2003, that the U.S. was joining the negotiations for the construction and operation of a major international magnetic fusion project. Known as ITER, the projects mission is to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy. The results of ITER, President Bush said, will advance the effort to produce clean, safe, renewable, and commercially-available fusion energy by the middle of this century. Commercialization of fusion has the potential to dramatically improve America's energy security while significantly reducing air pollution and emissions of greenhouse gases. The Bush administration considers fusion a key element in U.S. long-term energy plans because fusion offers the potential for abundant, safe and environmentally benign energy. ITER will allow scientists to explore the physics of a burning plasma at energy densities close to that of a commercial power plant, the critical next step in producing and delivering commercially available electricity from fusion to the grid. Another key advantage of fusion energy over current methods of electricity generation is that it can produce hydrogen with no carbon emissions. Thus ITER may contribute to a hydrogen-based economy of the future. The Department of Energy has led the U.S. delegation to the ITER talks. China, the European Union, Japan, the Russian Federation, and South Korea also are participating in the ITER negotiations. There have been two competing sites to host the $5 billion test bed for harnessing nuclear fusion to generate electricity. In November 2003, the European Union selected Cadarache, France, as its candidate site; Japans contender was in Rokkasho. The U.S. had supported the Japanese site on technical grounds. In July 2004, the U.S. Department of Energy announced after a national competition that the U.S. ITER Project Office will be located at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, located on Princeton Universitys James Forrestal Campus in Plainsboro, New Jersey. Princeton and its partner, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, jointly operate the U.S. ITER Project Office which is responsible for project management of U.S. activities to support construction of the international research facility. Media contact: Jeff Sherwood, 202/586-5806 -------- india Peace process with Pakistan not firm yet: Indian defense minister WASHINGTON (AFP) Jun 28, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050628015723.1g231aj4.html Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee said here Monday that the peace process with Pakistan was still not firmly in place despite positive results from negotiations launched one-and-a-half years ago by the nuclear rivals. Mukherjee accused Pakistan of not doing enough to dismantle the "infrastructure for terrorism" in Pakistan-held Kashmir and challenged the neighbour to cooperate with India as it has done with the United States on the "war on terror." The Himalayan state of Kashmir, divided between Pakistan and India and claimed by both in full, has caused two of three wars between the neighbours since their independence in 1947 from Britain. India accuses Pakistan of sponsoring an Islamic rebellion in Kashmir but Islamabad denies the allegations and says it merely supports an indigenous freedom struggle by Kashmiris. The rivals launched a peace process in January 2004 and since have restored road and air travel links and people-to-people contacts besides launching a bus service across the disputed borders in Kashmir. "At the same time, we cannot still say for sure that the peace process is entrenched," said Mukherjee at a public forum in Washington on Monday while on an official visit to the United States. "The infrastructure for terrorism in Pakistan and Pakistan-controlled territory, remains," he said. "We do not hear of operations like the ones being conducted by Pakistan, in cooperation with the US against the war on terrorism at its western frontiers, towards its eastern borders with India." Washington relies heavily on Pakistan to stem terrorism along its western border with Afghanistan, particularly in efforts to nab Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States. Mukherjee also referred to the restricted nature of trade and transport links with Pakistan to highlight uncertain peace prospects. "More importantly from the point of view of our strategic interests, trade and transit with and through Pakistan remain highly circumscribed," he said. "It is only when India and Pakistan resume direct, bilateral trade and transit, that there will be vested interest in peace in both countries," he added. Mukherjee's remarks came amid what appeared to be a minor setback to the peace process following New Delhi's recent rejection of a request by Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid to travel to Indian-administered Kashmir on a new trans-Kashmir bus service. The minister has been at the centre of a controversy since a leading separatist earlier this month praised his help during the early days of the Islamic militancy which exploded in the divided state in 1989. Rashid, a Kashmiri, had said he wanted to cross on the next run of the bus service on June 30 to visit relatives in Indian Kashmir. He would have been the first senior Islamabad official to make the trip. Asked at the forum when Kashmir would be demilitarized, Mukherjee said, "As and when the situation improves, definitely there will be withdrawal of troops." He said he hoped whatever initiatives taken by New Delhi were "adequately responded by the other side so that there is total peace." Mukherjee also said that it "could be possible after another couple of rounds of meetings to have a constructive solution" to the India-Pakistan standoff on the Siachen glacier, the world's highest battlefield overlooking Pakistan and China. During a visit to Siachen earlier this month, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called for the 6,300-metre (21,000-foot) glacier be turned into a "zone of peace" between India and Pakistan. ---- Any big ideas, Dr Singh? New opportunities for India in the world demand bold, new thinking C. RAJA MOHAN Tuesday, June 28, 2005 Indian Express http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=73410 The world wants India to assume responsibilities of an emerging great power but our security establishment conditioned by the Third World syndrome is unwilling to rise to the occasion. Thereby hangs a lengthening shadow between Indias new opportunities on the global stage and its ability to take advantage. Three big occasions in July will test Prime Minister Manmohan Singhs ability to drag a reluctant bureaucracy into thinking big and acting bold. In the first week, Singh will be at Gleneagles, Scotland to join leaders of Group of Eight leading industrial democracies. Singh is among the leaders of five emerging powers China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa who have been invited to the Gleneagles summit for a discussion on aid, poverty alleviation, energy and climate change, and African development. In the third week, Singh will be at the White House for talks with President Bush for what promises to be a key marker in the evolution of Indo-US relations. Singh would like to know if the US means what it says assist India to become a world power. The Bush administration would like to assess if India is actually ready for the mantle of great power status. And sometime in July, India along with Japan, Germany and Brazil will introduce the framework resolution on the United Nations Security Council expansion in the General Assembly. That will bring Indias campaign for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council into a decisive stage. There is nothing to suggest, in the public domain at least, that the establishment is rustling up some big ideas that Singh could take to Gleneagles and Washington. The reluctance to think in grand strategic terms is rooted in the inability of the system to come to terms with three broad imperatives that confront India. The first is the shift from the notion of autonomy to balance of power. For generations of the Indian elite, autonomy has rightly been the defining notion of foreign policy. Underlying it was the proposition that India was too weak to influence the nature of the international system. Avoiding the constricting demands of the global order, on which it had no influence, and retaining foreign policy autonomy were the new nations natural objectives. Today as its economic weight and political influence grow, India is emerging as one of the major power centres of the world. Amidst the rise of China and India and the strategic volatility of the Middle East, the centre of gravity of international politics is shifting from Europe to Asia. Global demographics reinforce this trend. India is no longer a mere object of international relations and can shape the political outcomes amidst a tectonic shift in the global balance of power. The search for autonomy meant avoiding entanglements and responsibilities. But being a great power involves taking sides on big issues, committing resources, stabilising power balances and standing up for what a nation considers its values and interests. But is India ready? That is the real question at Singhs Washington meeting with Bush. The current American engagement with India is premised on the twin assumptions that Indias rise is inevitable and non-destabilising. It is up to Singh to demonstrate in Washington that he represents a confident rising power in Asia. Second, India has been focused all these decades on preventing an internationalisation of its own security issues. It has very little to say on the current global security challenges and the new ways and means of addressing them. There is so much focus on joining the UNSC in India, but so little debate on the other issues at the top of the UN reform agenda. Are we ready for a supra-national UN that the Europeans seek? Are we prepared to make the UN leaner and more accountable, as the Bush Administration wants? When and how should the UN use force? What reforms are needed in the organisation and management of UN peace-keeping and peace-building? Does the challenge of terrorism demand new military doctrines? Is national sovereignty sacrosanct or are there occasions when the international system must intervene with force? Does the worlds largest democracy favour the promotion of pluralism? As the size and capabilities of the Indian military grow, the world will make greater demands on it. But will India look beyond its own territorial defence and an occasional peace-keeping operation and transform its military into an expeditionary force capable of contributing to international peace and stability at short notice? Prime Minister Singh must begin to articulate new Indian thinking on these issues. The third imperative for India is to shed its inactivism in the great global debates on poverty alleviation, aid, energy and climate change. Singh will not be credible in Gleneagles by repeating Indias boiler plate formulations on these issues. A decisive intervention by Singh would demand new approaches by India that match its new economic capabilities as well its impact on global energy consumption and climate change. On aid, poverty alleviation and other millennium development goals Singh must put across a view that balances American emphasis on structural change and the European focus on expanded aid flows. As the architect of Indias economic reforms and former chairman of the South Commission, he is better equipped than most to generate new options in the debate on global poverty. And those insights will have to be underwritten by new commitments on Indias part on debt relief for the poorest of the poor nations as well as expanded and untied aid flows, especially to Africa, from India. On energy and environmental issues India must come up with new proposals for international cooperation in the development of clean energy technologies. On all these issues, the old Third World rhetoric will get us nowhere. What we put on the table is far more important. It is only by assuming new responsibilities in the global arena can Singh make a success of Indias campaign for a permanent seat at the UNSC. At Gleneagles and in Washington, Singh must signal that India is no longer weighed down by self-doubt and is ready to take its seat at the high table. ---- Peace process with Pakistan not firm yet: Indian defense minister WASHINGTON (AFP) Jun 28, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050628015723.1g231aj4.html Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee said here Monday that the peace process with Pakistan was still not firmly in place despite positive results from negotiations launched one-and-a-half years ago by the nuclear rivals. Mukherjee accused Pakistan of not doing enough to dismantle the "infrastructure for terrorism" in Pakistan-held Kashmir and challenged the neighbour to cooperate with India as it has done with the United States on the "war on terror." The Himalayan state of Kashmir, divided between Pakistan and India and claimed by both in full, has caused two of three wars between the neighbours since their independence in 1947 from Britain. India accuses Pakistan of sponsoring an Islamic rebellion in Kashmir but Islamabad denies the allegations and says it merely supports an indigenous freedom struggle by Kashmiris. The rivals launched a peace process in January 2004 and since have restored road and air travel links and people-to-people contacts besides launching a bus service across the disputed borders in Kashmir. "At the same time, we cannot still say for sure that the peace process is entrenched," said Mukherjee at a public forum in Washington on Monday while on an official visit to the United States. "The infrastructure for terrorism in Pakistan and Pakistan-controlled territory, remains," he said. "We do not hear of operations like the ones being conducted by Pakistan, in cooperation with the US against the war on terrorism at its western frontiers, towards its eastern borders with India." Washington relies heavily on Pakistan to stem terrorism along its western border with Afghanistan, particularly in efforts to nab Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States. Mukherjee also referred to the restricted nature of trade and transport links with Pakistan to highlight uncertain peace prospects. "More importantly from the point of view of our strategic interests, trade and transit with and through Pakistan remain highly circumscribed," he said. "It is only when India and Pakistan resume direct, bilateral trade and transit, that there will be vested interest in peace in both countries," he added. Mukherjee's remarks came amid what appeared to be a minor setback to the peace process following New Delhi's recent rejection of a request by Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid to travel to Indian-administered Kashmir on a new trans-Kashmir bus service. The minister has been at the centre of a controversy since a leading separatist earlier this month praised his help during the early days of the Islamic militancy which exploded in the divided state in 1989. Rashid, a Kashmiri, had said he wanted to cross on the next run of the bus service on June 30 to visit relatives in Indian Kashmir. He would have been the first senior Islamabad official to make the trip. Asked at the forum when Kashmir would be demilitarized, Mukherjee said, "As and when the situation improves, definitely there will be withdrawal of troops." He said he hoped whatever initiatives taken by New Delhi were "adequately responded by the other side so that there is total peace." Mukherjee also said that it "could be possible after another couple of rounds of meetings to have a constructive solution" to the India-Pakistan standoff on the Siachen glacier, the world's highest battlefield overlooking Pakistan and China. During a visit to Siachen earlier this month, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called for the 6,300-metre (21,000-foot) glacier be turned into a "zone of peace" between India and Pakistan. ---- Any big ideas, Dr Singh? New opportunities for India in the world demand bold, new thinking C. RAJA MOHAN Tuesday, June 28, 2005 Indian Express http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=73410 The world wants India to assume responsibilities of an emerging great power but our security establishment conditioned by the Third World syndrome is unwilling to rise to the occasion. Thereby hangs a lengthening shadow between Indias new opportunities on the global stage and its ability to take advantage. Three big occasions in July will test Prime Minister Manmohan Singhs ability to drag a reluctant bureaucracy into thinking big and acting bold. In the first week, Singh will be at Gleneagles, Scotland to join leaders of Group of Eight leading industrial democracies. Singh is among the leaders of five emerging powers China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa who have been invited to the Gleneagles summit for a discussion on aid, poverty alleviation, energy and climate change, and African development. In the third week, Singh will be at the White House for talks with President Bush for what promises to be a key marker in the evolution of Indo-US relations. Singh would like to know if the US means what it says assist India to become a world power. The Bush administration would like to assess if India is actually ready for the mantle of great power status. And sometime in July, India along with Japan, Germany and Brazil will introduce the framework resolution on the United Nations Security Council expansion in the General Assembly. That will bring Indias campaign for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council into a decisive stage. There is nothing to suggest, in the public domain at least, that the establishment is rustling up some big ideas that Singh could take to Gleneagles and Washington. The reluctance to think in grand strategic terms is rooted in the inability of the system to come to terms with three broad imperatives that confront India. The first is the shift from the notion of autonomy to balance of power. For generations of the Indian elite, autonomy has rightly been the defining notion of foreign policy. Underlying it was the proposition that India was too weak to influence the nature of the international system. Avoiding the constricting demands of the global order, on which it had no influence, and retaining foreign policy autonomy were the new nations natural objectives. Today as its economic weight and political influence grow, India is emerging as one of the major power centres of the world. Amidst the rise of China and India and the strategic volatility of the Middle East, the centre of gravity of international politics is shifting from Europe to Asia. Global demographics reinforce this trend. India is no longer a mere object of international relations and can shape the political outcomes amidst a tectonic shift in the global balance of power. The search for autonomy meant avoiding entanglements and responsibilities. But being a great power involves taking sides on big issues, committing resources, stabilising power balances and standing up for what a nation considers its values and interests. But is India ready? That is the real question at Singhs Washington meeting with Bush. The current American engagement with India is premised on the twin assumptions that Indias rise is inevitable and non-destabilising. It is up to Singh to demonstrate in Washington that he represents a confident rising power in Asia. Second, India has been focused all these decades on preventing an internationalisation of its own security issues. It has very little to say on the current global security challenges and the new ways and means of addressing them. There is so much focus on joining the UNSC in India, but so little debate on the other issues at the top of the UN reform agenda. Are we ready for a supra-national UN that the Europeans seek? Are we prepared to make the UN leaner and more accountable, as the Bush Administration wants? When and how should the UN use force? What reforms are needed in the organisation and management of UN peace-keeping and peace-building? Does the challenge of terrorism demand new military doctrines? Is national sovereignty sacrosanct or are there occasions when the international system must intervene with force? Does the worlds largest democracy favour the promotion of pluralism? As the size and capabilities of the Indian military grow, the world will make greater demands on it. But will India look beyond its own territorial defence and an occasional peace-keeping operation and transform its military into an expeditionary force capable of contributing to international peace and stability at short notice? Prime Minister Singh must begin to articulate new Indian thinking on these issues. The third imperative for India is to shed its inactivism in the great global debates on poverty alleviation, aid, energy and climate change. Singh will not be credible in Gleneagles by repeating Indias boiler plate formulations on these issues. A decisive intervention by Singh would demand new approaches by India that match its new economic capabilities as well its impact on global energy consumption and climate change. On aid, poverty alleviation and other millennium development goals Singh must put across a view that balances American emphasis on structural change and the European focus on expanded aid flows. As the architect of Indias economic reforms and former chairman of the South Commission, he is better equipped than most to generate new options in the debate on global poverty. And those insights will have to be underwritten by new commitments on Indias part on debt relief for the poorest of the poor nations as well as expanded and untied aid flows, especially to Africa, from India. On energy and environmental issues India must come up with new proposals for international cooperation in the development of clean energy technologies. On all these issues, the old Third World rhetoric will get us nowhere. What we put on the table is far more important. It is only by assuming new responsibilities in the global arena can Singh make a success of Indias campaign for a permanent seat at the UNSC. At Gleneagles and in Washington, Singh must signal that India is no longer weighed down by self-doubt and is ready to take its seat at the high table. -------- iran Bush asks EU to warn Iran on nuclear arms By Alec Russell in Washington (Filed: 28/06/2005) UK Telegraph http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/28/wiran28.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/28/ixworld.html President George W Bush urged Europe yesterday to send an unequivocal and united message to Iran's hardline new leader that development of nuclear weapons is out of the question. His comments, made during a joint appearance with Gerhard Schrder at the White House, came as Mr Bush sought to put aside his bitter disagreement with the German chancellor over the Iraq war - in public at least. Gerhard Schrder and President Bush yesterday The election of the ultra-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sent jitters through the West as it braces itself for confrontation and tricky diplomacy over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Mr Schrder earlier said that Teheran could not be barred from the peaceful use of nuclear energy "even though some might not like that", an aside thought to be aimed at Bush. Washington believes that allowing Teheran to run its own nuclear power programme would inevitably lead to possession of nuclear weapons. The Bush administration is also sceptical about the likely success of a French, British and German diplomatic initiative towards Iran. While Washington has indicated that it does not back Germany's quest for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, Mr Bush said: "We oppose no country's bid". Washington supports Japan's bid for a seat as part of the proposed reworking of the council's composition - the first for three decades. Mr Schrder conceded that there were differences over the council's expansion, but said he was "happy to hear" there was no opposition to the principle of Germany's campaign. Mr Bush even went so far as to praise Mr Schrder for his support in reconstructing Iraq, an endorsement that will baffle many in Washington, where the German leader is reviled for exploiting anti-Americanism to secure re-election in 2002. Asked if he wished Mr Schrder luck in his expected autumn campaign for re-election, Mr Bush said: "The chancellor is a seasoned political campaigner. If there's elections, I'm confident he knows what he's going to do out there. As we say in Texas, this won't be his first rodeo." ---- US renews threat to take Iran nuclear row to UN Tue Jun 28, 1:10 PM ET (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050628/pl_afp/usirannuclear_050628171022 WASHINGTON - The United States renewed its warning to Iran that it could face possible UN action if it refused to negotiate a halt to its suspected nuclear weapons program. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed Washington's continued support for efforts by Britain, France and Germany to wean Tehran off any nuclear arms ambitions with security and economic incentives. "There are legs still to this diplomatic process that they're involved in and we're trying to support the EU-3," Rice said in an interview with Fox News. "But everybody has said -- all of us united, including the EU-3 -- that if the Iranians decide that they won't take this way out, that the international community has other options like the (UN) Security Council." The United States has long sought to take the Iranians before the world body for possible sanctions but has lacked sufficient support. So it decided in March to back the European negotiating efforts. But officials here wondered whether the election of Iranian hardliner Mahmood Ahmadinejad as president last week would toughen Tehran's determination to pursue sensitive work on the nuclear fuel cycle. Rice signaled no immediate change of tack by the Americans. "We are in a process, and I think we lose nothing by allowing the diplomacy to play out here and to give the Iranians a chance," she told Fox News. "But if the Iranians don't take that chance, then we have a unified international community going forward." The Iranians deny seeking to develop nuclear weapons and say their nuclear program is strictly for civilian purposes. ---- Iran election result a shock due to flawed analysis Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:55 AM BST By Christian Oliver (Reuters) http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-06-28T105541Z_01_MOR839281_RTRUKOC_0_IRAN-ELECTION.xml TEHRAN - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's surprise victory in Iran's presidential election has exposed profound misconceptions, especially among foreign media and diplomats, about the nature of his appeal to the country's voters. Many Iranians, tired of failed reformists, saw the conservative blacksmith's son as something of a rebel against the clerical establishment, a 'poor and honest' image reinforced by astute campaign broadcasts showing his modest home. A traditional sympathy for the underdog also helped Ahmadinejad, mayor of Tehran but little known elsewhere, in the runoff against ex-president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a powerful cleric widely believed to have many business interests. Opinion polls, though notoriously inaccurate, reinforced the view of pundits, journalists and diplomats that Ahmadinejad was a rank outsider before the first round of elections on June 17. Even when he claimed a surprise place in Friday's run-off few suggested a comfortable second-round victory. Because of his religious conservatism, much of the foreign media lumped Ahmadinejad in the same basket as Iran's ruling clerics, whereas many Iranians saw him as something different. "He seems to have fresh ideas, I am fairly optimistic he can offer something new after a quarter of a century of mullahs," said Reza, a mining engineer. In his campaign posters, Ahmadinejad identified himself closely with Mohammad Ali Rajai, murdered in 1981, who was the last non-cleric to be president of Iran. Iranian jokes portray clerics as complacent and corrupt, living off the fat of the land, whereas Ahmadinejad is hailed as a principled Robin Hood figure who will distribute Iran's abundant oil wealth more fairly. Western journalists expressed shock that people in poor south Tehran spoke of Ahmadinejad as a rebel or revolutionary, rather than a stooge of the clerical elites. POLITICAL HEAVYWEIGHT In the runoff Ahmadinejad took on the favourite, Rafsanjani, the epitome of a powerful cleric with tentacles across a vast business empire. Rafsanjani denies having big financial interests, but it is hard to find Iranians who believe him. "I think it was a vote of protest, not a vote for the status quo," said Karim Sadjadpour, analyst with the International Crisis Group. "They think 'Ahmadinejad may not solve all our problems but he is not going to enrich himself trying'," he added. Rafsanjani and the reformists stressed rapprochement with the United States and civil liberties, making headlines across an approving western world. But Ahmadinejad's election broadcasts won hearts among the less well-off by showing his humble home, and he campaigned on improving the basic necessities of life, in speeches that make dull news stories but win votes. "It is no surprise that those campaigning on human rights did not do as well as those focusing on subsidies and handouts," said Sadjadpour. Analysts said it would also be a mistake to believe the huge majorities won by reformist President Mohammad Khatami in 1997 and 2001 were based on the reforms that excite western spectators: social freedoms and international detente. Respect for Khatami's father, a prominent Ayatollah, and a craving for jobs and better wages also won him votes, they said, appealing to the same electorate that has turned to Ahmadinejad. NETWORKING Even those who saw Ahmadinejad's appeal, doubted he would be well enough known in the provinces to win a national mandate. One Tehran-based political analyst said pundits had underrated the speed with which Iran's networks of religious vigilantes, the Basij, could be mobilised. "Then there is the role of television -- every village in Iran has a television now," added the analyst. Ahmadinejad's election broadcasts were perfectly pitched, showing him attending to the needs of the poor, elderly and war wounded, while rebuffing rich opportunists seeking favours. The analyst said that in a runoff against Rafsanjani, the rural poor would vote for an unknown, whoever he was. "Iranians have a culture of backing the victim." Shi'ite Islam and Iranian folklore are rich in stories of martyrdom and the world's inherent injustices. Heroes are normally doomed. Kambiz, 40, a former policeman, said the foreign press got it wrong because Iranian reform and liberalisation were more popular abroad than at home after eight years of reformists' failure to deliver on their promises. "Reformists are a bit like (Mikhail) Gorbachev, in America they still treated him like a god when back in Russia the polls showed no one liked him any more." ---- News Analysis: U.S. Attack on Iran May Be in the Cards June 28, 2005 By WILLIAM O.BEEMAN Pacific News Service http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=9da0bcd682e7e4b57ad05d619b4a18c3 TEHRAN, Iran--The United States may still attack Iran, and for all the wrong reasons. Two recent analyses, both appearing a day before Iranians elected former Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the presidency on June 23, reveal how this may happen and what the logic behind such an attack may be. The first analysis, by former United Nations nuclear arms inspector Scott Ritter and distributed through the Al Jazeera Web site, claims that the U.S. assault on Iran has already begun. Ritter asserts that the terrorist organization, the Mujaheddin-e Khalg (known as the MEK or MKO in the West) is operating as a strike force under CIA direction, and that the United States is preparing to stage military attacks with U.S. troops from the neighboring Republic of Azerbaijan. The second analysis appears in the Boston Globe. Ray Takeyh, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, claims that the "counter reform" movement that led to Ahmadinejad's victory at the polls is entirely the doing of Iranian chief jurisprudent Ali Khamene'i. Takeyh's analysis echoes an infamous paper issued by the Committee on the Present Danger--an organization of ex-Cold Warriors that has retooled itself as an anti-terrorist organization. That report, issued Dec. 20, 2004, was entitled "Iran: A New Approach," and was authored by Mark Palmer and George Schultz. Its main point was to paint Khamene'i as a Saddam-style dictator. Both of these analyses have inherent flaws, but taken together they spell something quite ominous. Ritter's pronouncement that the attack is already underway seems premature, despite the fact that Seymour Hersh predicted that it would happen about now in "The Coming Wars" in the New Yorker on Jan. 24 and 31 of this year. But he does appear to be reporting on movement that significant elements in the Bush administration favor, and for which they may have laid the groundwork. There are a lot of random facts that lend credence to Ritter's claims. Last year, there were fake elections in Azerbaijan. The ex-dictator of that country, octogenarian Haidar Aliev was rumored to have died two months before the election. The installation of his unqualified ne'er-do-well son, Ilham, to applause from the Bush administration allowed the completion of an oil pipeline from the Caspian region across former Soviet Georgia to Turkey, bypassing Iran. Additionally, there have been continued contacts between Iranian Azerbaijani separatist Mahmudali Chehregani and the Bush administration. Moreover, there are apparently real plans for the Bush administration to establish a military base in the Republic of Azerbaijan, the better to stage the kind of attack on Iran about which Ritter is writing. There is continued administration contact and support for the MEK, and support from a number of U.S. senators and congresspeople. Ritter's scenario begins to look probable, if not real. However, Takeyh's piece (along with the paper from the Committee on the Present Danger) is the more dangerous of the two analyses, because of its attribution of a genuine social movement to a single person. This makes it tempting for administration hawks in possession of limited intelligence (of all sorts), and who are susceptible to the avalanche of neoconservative blather on Iranian politics to think that toppling Khamene'i will bring the whole Islamic Republic down like a house of cards. This is truly dangerous thinking, and it is blatantly not in the long-term interests of the United States or Iran for the U.S. government to act upon such a flawed assumption. The election results took almost all Iranian analysts by surprise. However, this development should not have been unforeseen. Iran is still engaged with internal revolutionary dialog. The original Revolution of 1978-79 was a drive for purification of the Iranian soul as much as anything else. This need for spiritual and moral purity was the element that engaged the middle and upper classes in the end, encouraging them to oust the shah against their own economic interests. The pull of the spiritual is obviously still strong in Iran, and Ahmadinejad has been able to embody this successfully in his image of simplicity, humility and spirituality. He further combines his image with an economic message that promises that the fruits of the revolution--namely the elevation of the mostazefin (downtrodden)--can still be achieved. Ahmadinejad's persona and his message are clearly irresistible to people who see the original ideals of the revolution slipping away through the increasingly Westernized behavior and sensibilities of the salons and boutiques of North Tehran. In short, the social forces that brought Ahmadinejad to the presidency are real, broad and clearly very powerful. Any American move to attack Iran, or to try to achieve regime change through the narrow measure of trying to topple Khamene'i or any limited group of individuals will fail. The Iranian public supporting Ahmadinejad and what he represents will reject any replacement for the current government, and the rest of the Iranian population will consider anything initiated by the United States to be tainted. The day when Washington will finally try to understand Iran on its own terms may come. But the world may have to wait for a very long time for this to take place. William O. Beeman observed the Iranian presidential elections from Tehran. He is professor of anthropology and director of Middle East Studies at Brown University. His forthcoming book is The 'Great Satan' vs. 'Mad Mullahs': How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other? -------- russia Growing Nuclear Blindness Tuesday, June 28, 2005. Issue 3196. Page 11. Moscow Times: By Pavel Felgenhauer http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2005/06/28/008.html Last week, the launch of a military communications satellite from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in the Archangelsk region ended in a crash six minutes into the flight. This disaster has put additional strain on a military space program that was already in deep trouble. Russia's military sputniks have traditionally been less sophisticated and reliable than their U.S. counterparts. Russian satellites continue to be operational in orbit for smaller time spans. Spy satellites drop exposed film containers to earth to be developed. To compensate for lower quality, during the Cold War, Russia generally launched 10 times more military satellites into orbit than the United States. After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the number of military space launches began to dwindle and with it, the number of operational military sputniks in orbit. The decline in space capability was not abrupt because during the Soviet era a substantial emergency stockpile of military communication, early warning and spy satellites were accumulated, along with dozens of extra space launch rockets. According to Soviet battle plans for World War III, as many as 100 new military satellites would have been launched in the immediate run-up to global nuclear hostilities. The Cold War stockpile has been partially depleted by now, while the newly built military sputniks and rockets tend to be of inferior quality. There have been fewer space launches as well as a higher percentage of accidents and failures, while satellites already in orbit have often stopped functioning prematurely. Taken together, these realities deprive the Defense Ministry of vital capabilities. Operational, high-altitude early warning satellites must be constantly maneuvered in orbit and aimed at particular areas on the earth's surface. When a satellite goes out of control, it begins to drift unchecked, so an operational sputnik is easy to distinguish from a faulty one. According to Western intelligence sources, of the six high-altitude, elliptical orbit Oko satellites that detect possible U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile launches using infrared boost period detectors, four are apparently out of control at present. Of the early warning satellites that are designed to detect ICBM launches from U.S. Trident submarines at sea, only one is operational, and it is watching the mid-Atlantic. The U.S. Pacific Trident deployments are currently not being watched by nuclear attack early warning satellites at all, while the observation of the Atlantic Ocean is partial. The two still-operational Oko sputniks observe the United States for six hours a day each. The rest of the time, the Russian Defense Ministry is blind and would only know of an attack when the incoming warheads were detected by land-based early warning radars. Four of the eight early warning radars Russia operates today are based abroad in CIS countries such as Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Belarus. CIS nations exploit Moscow's eagerness to use these radars as a bargaining chip to press for various political and economic concessions. The two radars in Ukraine and the one in Azerbaijan are legally the property of those nations and provide Moscow with online data on contract, which means their continued use is constantly in question. If the present deficiencies of the Russian early warning system continue and there is a sudden emergency, military and political leaders in Moscow would have just a couple of minutes to decide if an ICBM attack is indeed in progress and Russia should launch its own ICBMs in response before the U.S. warheads hit Russian bases. A mistake in judgment could cause a global nuclear war, which makes a Russia with nuclear warheads but without satellites the worst nightmare Western military planners could imagine. In Moscow, partial nuclear blindness has caused much less tension. The satellite early warning system is less sophisticated than the American one. In the Soviet era, it issued false ICBM attack warnings several times. Russian generals never really believed that a sudden global nuclear war was possible and took any early warning panic signals with a pinch of salt. The pragmatism and professionalism of our military decision-makers kept us all alive during the Cold War and continue to do so today. But as the crisis of the unreformed military deepens, early warning devices are decaying and the competence of our military decision-makers is declining. The time when nightmares come true may indeed be approaching. Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst based in Moscow. -------- security Nunn issues warning on nuclear materials By JULIA MALONE Cox News Service Tuesday, June 28, 2005 http://www.western-star.com/hp/content/shared/news/nation/stories/06/28_TERRORISM_NUNN.html WASHINGTON Former Sen. Sam Nunn said Monday that the U.S. and other countries "could face disaster" unless they "greatly elevate" efforts to keep nuclear bomb-making materials out of the hands of terrorists. "The terrorists are racing, and we are somewhere between a walk and a crawl," the Georgia Democrat told a forum organized by former members of the 911 Commission to measure progress on security recommendations they issued a year ago in a report that became a national best-selling book. Nunn, who as a senator co-authored a U.S. program that helps the former Soviet states dismantle or secure their nuclear stockpiles, said responsibility for safeguarding the world's nuclear materials lies largely with the United States and Russia. On a scale of 1 to 10, he rated that effort at "3." Nunn laid out a nightmare scenario in which a terrorist group detonated a nuclear bomb in one city and then announced that they were going to blow up another. "That's the kind of horror we would face," said Nunn, who is now CEO of the nonprofit group Nuclear Threat Initiative. "We believe that ... seeing the danger is the first step to improving security, and that public understanding is absolutely essential if we are to meet these challenges head-on," he said. Nunn urged the United States to resolve a long-standing dispute over legal liability that he said has "gummed up" the U.S.-aided drive to secure Russia's nuclear weapons stockpiles. Nunn said he was hopeful that the issuewhich involves who would pay if there were an accident during the process of securing the materials will be settled when President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet next week in Scotland at the annual G-8 economic summit. He also urged the two governments to reach agreement on the monitoring of smaller nuclear "tactical" weapons. "We don't have good counts on those, we don't know where they are," Nunn said. He rated progress in this area at 1 on a scale 1 to 10. In addition, the U.S. and its global partners should move to "clean out" highly enriched uranium that more than 40 countries are storing in more than 100 research labs, many of them poorly protected, he said. The material can be used to make a nuclear bomb. The former senator also gave low ratings to efforts to safeguard biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction built under the Soviet regime. Nunn described a remote Russian chemical facility at Shusha, where nearly 2 million artillery tubes filled with nerve gas are stored in flimsy structures. "Most of them are not well enough built to house your favorite horse, let alone chemical weapons that could wipe out mankind," Nunn said. A canister of that nerve gas "could fit in a briefcase and would be a terrorist's dream," he said. Despite his sobering assessment, Nunn said that some progress has been made, including the removal of all nuclear weapons from the former Soviet states of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus and Libya's decision to give up its nuclear ambitions. Nunn defended the $400 million a year that the United States gives Russia to help safeguard its weapons through the 13-year-old Nunn-Lugar program, named for the Georgian and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Dick Lugar, an Indiana Republican. "It's fundamentally a Russian responsibility" to take care of its aging stockpiles, Nunn said. "But it's our security." On the Internet, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project formed by former 9/11 Commission members can be found at http://www.9-11pdp.org Julia Malone's email address is jmalone@coxnews.com -------- treaties Romania observes international provisions on nuclear non-proliferation, according to IAEA Marti, 28 iunie 2005 - ora 15:10 /Rompres/ http://www.rompres.ro/index.php?id=319245&t=ENGLEZA&ln= Bucharest, June 28 - Romania is among the 21 countries that fully observe the provisions of the Warranty Agreement and the Additional Protocol signed with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), according to a report on 2004 of the Agency, the Romanian Minister of Foreign Affairs (MAE) informs on Tuesday. -------- u.s. nuc facilities US resumes production of Cold War plutonium By Andrew Buncombe in Washington Published: 28 June 2005 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article295297.ece The US is poised to begin production of highly radioactive plutonium 238 - used previously to power spy satellites and space probes - for the first time since the Cold War. Officials say that the plutonium is being produced for "national security". The US is poised to begin production of highly radioactive plutonium 238 - used previously to power spy satellites and space probes - for the first time since the Cold War. Officials say that the plutonium is being produced for "national security". The isotope, many hundred times more radioactive than plutonium 239 which is used in nuclear arms, is to be produced at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling site close to the Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. Local environmental and anti-nuclear groups are concerned about possible contamination from radioactive waste: plutonium 238 is so powerful that even a speck of it is enough to cause cancer. Officials involved in the $1.5bn (800m) programme, which is intended to produce around 300lb of the material in the next 30 years, say the bulk of the plutonium will be used in secret projects but refuse to provide further details. The material has previously been used in batteries to power deep space probes such as Cassini as well as underwater surveillance and espionage equipment. "The real reason we're starting production is for national security," Timothy Frazier, head of radio-isotope power systems at the Energy Department, told The New York Times. The US has not made plutonium 238 since the 1980s when production was based at the Savannah River plant in South Carolina with some other work done in New Mexico and Tennessee. Since then it has relied on ageing stockpiles of the material or else on imports from Russia. The new programme will concentrate production at the Idaho facility in an effort to minimise the risk of leakage or contamination involving the 50,000 drums of hazardous and radioactive waste it is expected to make. Local groups fear the programme will present considerable public health risks. Mary Woollen-Mitchell of Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free said: "They are concentrating all this production in just one place but it has never really been done safely anywhere. We're sceptical when they say, 'We know enough to make sure it's safe and to avoid an accident'. When they have spoken to us they say the majority of it will be for secret missions but they don't talk about the remainder. I worry about whether it will be involved in the weaponisation of space." In his interview, Mr Frazier adamantly denied that the plutonium would be involved in military projects in space, though it has previously been used to power vessels that have travelled to those parts of space where there is insufficient sunlight to power solar panels. One unidentified federal scientist who helps the military plan space missions told the newspaper that the plutonium might be used in future projects to power compact spy satellites that would be difficult to detect. "It's going to be a tough world in the next one or two decades and this may be needed," he said. "Technologically, it makes sense." The Snake River Alliance, a nuclear watchdog in Idaho, said: "Idaho is once again in the bull's eye for a dangerous nuclear programme that will create more nuclear waste and increase the contamination risks for our people, economy, and environment." The US is poised to begin production of highly radioactive plutonium 238 - used previously to power spy satellites and space probes - for the first time since the Cold War. Officials say that the plutonium is being produced for "national security". The US is poised to begin production of highly radioactive plutonium 238 - used previously to power spy satellites and space probes - for the first time since the Cold War. Officials say that the plutonium is being produced for "national security". The isotope, many hundred times more radioactive than plutonium 239 which is used in nuclear arms, is to be produced at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling site close to the Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. Local environmental and anti-nuclear groups are concerned about possible contamination from radioactive waste: plutonium 238 is so powerful that even a speck of it is enough to cause cancer. Officials involved in the $1.5bn (800m) programme, which is intended to produce around 300lb of the material in the next 30 years, say the bulk of the plutonium will be used in secret projects but refuse to provide further details. The material has previously been used in batteries to power deep space probes such as Cassini as well as underwater surveillance and espionage equipment. "The real reason we're starting production is for national security," Timothy Frazier, head of radio-isotope power systems at the Energy Department, told The New York Times. The US has not made plutonium 238 since the 1980s when production was based at the Savannah River plant in South Carolina with some other work done in New Mexico and Tennessee. Since then it has relied on ageing stockpiles of the material or else on imports from Russia. The new programme will concentrate production at the Idaho facility in an effort to minimise the risk of leakage or contamination involving the 50,000 drums of hazardous and radioactive waste it is expected to make. Local groups fear the programme will present considerable public health risks. Mary Woollen-Mitchell of Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free said: "They are concentrating all this production in just one place but it has never really been done safely anywhere. We're sceptical when they say, 'We know enough to make sure it's safe and to avoid an accident'. When they have spoken to us they say the majority of it will be for secret missions but they don't talk about the remainder. I worry about whether it will be involved in the weaponisation of space." In his interview, Mr Frazier adamantly denied that the plutonium would be involved in military projects in space, though it has previously been used to power vessels that have travelled to those parts of space where there is insufficient sunlight to power solar panels. One unidentified federal scientist who helps the military plan space missions told the newspaper that the plutonium might be used in future projects to power compact spy satellites that would be difficult to detect. "It's going to be a tough world in the next one or two decades and this may be needed," he said. "Technologically, it makes sense." The Snake River Alliance, a nuclear watchdog in Idaho, said: "Idaho is once again in the bull's eye for a dangerous nuclear programme that will create more nuclear waste and increase the contamination risks for our people, economy, and environment." Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 652 Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 729-0517 (207) 319-2017 (Cell phone) globalnet@mindspring.com http://www.space4peace.org http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Our blog) -------- florida TURKEY POINT Plant's nuclear reactor is shut down after blaze A fire at Turkey Point knocked a nuclear reactor off-line, but FPL said the incident was quickly contained and customers will not be affected. BY LUISA YANEZ - lyanez@herald.com Tue, Jun. 28, 2005 Miami Herald http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/12000934.htm One of two nuclear reactors at the Turkey Point power plant in south Miami-Dade remains off-line today as federal investigators try to pinpoint why a transformer burst into flames early Monday. The blaze, which broke out about 3:15 a.m., never endangered the plant's fortressed reactors or their radioactive cores, said Bill Swank, spokesman for Florida Power & Light, which owns the plant. ''The fire was outside the containment building and nowhere near the nuclear units,'' Swank said. Inspectors from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission are at the plant trying to determine what caused the fire, said Roger Hannah, spokesman for the agency's regional office in Atlanta. The federal agency said FPL followed all required procedures, and quickly reported the incident to the NRC. Swank said state officials were also notified Monday. Swank said it's unclear what sparked the blaze, the first to shut down one of the power plant's 30-year-old reactors in recent memory. The extent of damage also has to be determined. MINERAL OIL LEAK The cause may have been a mineral oil leak, he said. The oil is used as a coolant in the transformer that serves Unit 4, which was turned off automatically when the blaze broke out. Gallons of mineral oil spilled out onto the ground. ''We are not sure yet if a leak caused the fire or if the fire caused the leak,'' Swank said. The power plant's sprinkler system doused the flames. Although the power plant has its own fire brigade, 10 Miami-Dade fire-rescue units rushed to the plant, ready for the worst-case scenario. 'When you hear on your radio, `Attention: Structure fire at Turkey Point,' it gives you pause,'' said Lt. Eric Baum, spokesman for Miami-Dade Fire-Rescue. NO RADIATION The units rolled into the far south power plant 16 minutes after they were dispatched with their department-issued radiation detection meters on, Baum said. Turkey Point is on Biscayne Bay, 24 miles south of Miami and east of Homestead. ''It's for our own safety and that of the people who live near the plant,'' Baum said of using the meters, which detected no radiation problems. ''When we arrived, the fire was out, but mineral oil had spilled. We put down giant pads to absorb it,'' Baum said. Luis Espinoza, a spokesman for the county's Department of Environmental Resources Management, said ''less than 50 gallons'' of mineral oil spilled and the ``environmental impact was minimal.'' As the investigation continues, it's unclear how long Unit 4 will be off-line, Swank said. But the utility's customers should not feel the impact, even in the middle of summer. Swank said the reactor provides only about 3.5 percent of the power plant's total 20,000-megawatt capacity. ''It's one small component of the entire system,'' he said. POTENTIAL DISASTER Paul Gunter, with the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington, D.C., an industry watchdog group, said any fire near a nuclear reactor is dangerous and a potential disaster. ''Fire is a significant contributor to overall core damage,'' he said. Gunter said it's the NRC's job to enforce safety rules that prevent such fires. The last known transformer fire at a U.S. power plant occurred in June 2004 at Vermont Yankee. In that incident, the states of New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and local surrounding counties were immediately notified of the potential disaster. As in Monday's incident, no radiation escaped. -------- idaho Our View: DOE should justify plans to make more plutonium E-mail: ConsolidationEIS@nuclear.energy.gov Telephone: (800) 919-3706. Fax: (800) 919-3765. Edition Date: 06-28-2005 http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005506280323 The federal government's plan to make plutonium could create jobs at the Idaho National Laboratory in eastern Idaho. But this same plutonium can cause cancer and will generate nuclear waste as the government is trying to clean up waste already in Idaho. In a report issued Friday, the Energy Department said it wants to produce plutonium and consolidate the work in Idaho. It's time to ask good questions. What's the plutonium needed for? That question can best be guessed at by looking at chemistry and history. The form of plutonium in question is known as plutonium-238. It's a dense, silver metal. Unlike other types of plutonium, plutonium-238 cannot be used in a nuclear weapon. As plutonium-238 decays, it releases a lot of heat. So this plutonium has been used to run long-lasting batteries for space missions and even to power some pacemakers. The Energy Department says it needs an additional 11 pounds a year of plutonium, though it's not clear why. In a New York Times article Monday, the Energy Department's Timothy Frazier denied that any of the plutonium would be used for nuclear arms, satellites or space weapons. So why is the Energy Department getting back into the business of plutonium, after about a decade? What is driving the need, met until now by the existing stockpile and by plutonium bought from Russia for use in the space program? What are the health and environmental risks? Plutonium is most dangerous when ingested or inhaled. A particle of plutonium can remain lodged in a body organ for decades, exposing organs and tissues to radiation. How does the federal government's plan protect workers at the lab and people who live nearby? And what about the plutonium-contaminated waste produced while manufacturing the plutonium? Would it leave Idaho for a permanent burial site in New Mexico, as DOE promises? What is in it for Idaho? A $250 million to $300 million construction project. Then, about 100 permanent jobs: people who produce the plutonium; fashion it into fuel pellets; and assemble, test and deliver the finished product. In a Reader's View today, Energy Department Idaho manager Elizabeth Sellers says the project could open the doors to other work. Would it? And how can we know, when so many uncertainties surround the plutonium project itself? The Energy Department in 1986 sought to produce weapons-grade plutonium in Idaho; some Idahoans were skeptical, others outraged. The federal government ultimately tabled the idea. This latest plutonium project also deserves Idahoans' scrutiny. -------- kentucky Cylinder security concerns guards The DOE, however, says high security will be maintained as UDS recycles hazardous waste at the Paducah plant. By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com 270.575.8656 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 Paducah Sun http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2005/nn12157.htm Leaders of the guards union warn there is too little security planned for 33,000 cylinders of hazardous waste that will be recycled at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant starting in 2007. They have asked federal lawmakers from Kentucky to intervene, saying they disagree with the assessment of cylinder handler Uranium Disposition Services and the Department of Energy that only limited security is needed. "DOE has always had a night-watchman attitude toward security at this plant," Jay Stoll, president of Local 111 of Security Police and Fire Professionals of America, said in a news release. "We feel that this is the first step of a no-security attitude by DOE and UDS." UDS President Tim Forden referred questions to the Energy Department, which released a statement Monday afternoon disputing Stoll's claims. "We will still require the same level of service from the protective forces and expect them to be vigilant and maintain the high security standards that apply to the entire site," the statement said in part, going on to characterize Stoll's criticism "that there will be no security and no controls" as incorrect. UDS assumed operation of the plant cylinder yards Monday. The firm is building a factory just west of the yards inside a fenced area east of the plant entrance road to convert spent uranium hexafluoride (UF6) in the 14-ton canisters into more stable material from which valuable fluorine will be extracted. Leftover waste will be shipped to Energy Department-approved disposal facilities in the desert Southwest. The plant will operate for 25 years with four production lines, each converting about one of the massive cylinders daily. The material a byproduct of daily production of UF6 for use in nuclear fuel contains low-level radiation, but its main threat is that it releases caustic hydrogen fluoride when exposed to moisture in the air. Some of the cylinders have been stored since the plant started operating in 1952. Many have been repainted, but many are rusty, and critics worry about a hydrogen fluoride release. Stoll said the cylinders, which are near a wooded area, no longer will have access controls other than the fence. Union officers have met with managers of DOE and UDS, who feel that very little or no security is needed, he said. "We feel the public has a right to know about this lack of security," he said, adding that union leaders have sought help from Rep. Ed Whitfield and Sens. Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning. DOE's statement pointed out that a "detailed security plan was developed," and "the Nuclear Regulatory Commission concurred with our plan." Stoll also expressed concern that no one working directly with UDS can have a plant security clearance because the company is partly foreign-owned. The Lexington-based firm is a joint venture of three companies, including Framatome, a French consortium that has been converting UF6 waste in Germany since 1994 and in Washington state since 1998. DOE scrutinized the foreign-ownership issue in awarding a $558 million contract to UDS to build and run similar conversion plants here and in Piketon, Ohio. -------- nevada Nevadans' legislation aims to help protect DOE whistle-blowers By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU Tuesday, June 28, 2005 Las Vegas Review-Journal http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Jun-28-Tue-2005/news/26794568.html WASHINGTON -- Energy Department workers who report wrongdoing could have more muscle to fight retaliation under a bill the Senate is expected to pass today. Senate leaders incorporated whistle-blower provisions into the energy policy bill late last week. The Senate Energy Committee made a copy of the amendment public Monday. The amendment would allow DOE whistle-blowers to take their claims to federal court if the Labor Department does not act within 180 days on complaints of harassment or job reprisal for reporting safety violations or other problems. The legislation was sponsored by Nevada's senators. They have said their interest dates to 2003 when they had difficulty persuading Yucca Mountain workers to testify at a hearing about flaws in the nuclear waste program. The amendment broadens protections that Congress earlier made available to financial industry workers who report investment scams, said Tom Devine, legal director for the Government Accountability Project, a group that works with whistle-blowers. Devine said a 180-day deadline could cause quick action on retaliation claims that emerge from the Energy Department. "The Labor Department process is not designed for high-stakes public policy controversies like the things that could take place at a nuclear weapons facility," Devine said. "Often, whistle-blower cases can drag out for two or three years, and that deters workers from coming forward," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Our legislation provides workers with the peace of mind that there will be consequences if a case is not resolved quickly or fairly." "This is a fundamental right and especially important when it comes to something as serious as the work being done at the DOE," said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. Versions of the energy bill contain differing whistle-blower sections. Devine said Congress is expected to continue negotiating whistle-blower provisions in conference committee. Besides the Nevadans' amendment, the Senate bill contains whistle-blower language covering nuclear plant workers that is sponsored by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., Devine said. The energy bill that passed the House this spring would prohibit the government from reimbursing DOE contractors who lose whistle-blower cases, Devine said. -------- utah No prison for Goshute Judge orders probation, payment of taxes to IRS By Geoffrey Fattah Deseret Morning News Tuesday, June 28, 2005 http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600144737,00.html A federal judge ordered Monday the chairman of the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes to "make peace" with members of his tribe as well as with the IRS after the chairman pleaded guilty to making a false statement on his 1999 tax return. U.S. District Judge Bruce Jenkins spared Leon D. Bear prison time, but did place him on three years probation and ordered the controversial tribal leader to pay the IRS $13,101 in unpaid taxes and his tribe $31,500 for duplicate stipends he billed the tribe. Bear pleaded guilty last April as part of a plea bargain to one count of making a false statement on his taxes, and he admitted that he failed to claim $67,000 in income to the IRS for the 1999 tax year. In exchange, prosecutors agreed not to pursue Bear for alleged fraudulent tax returns filed in 2000 and 2001, as well as charges that he embezzled some $160,000 by double-billing the band for travel expenses and for inappropriately accepting a salary for his work as tribal secretary. Although Bear faced up to three years in federal prison, Jenkins said he did not believe prison time was necessary, noting that Bear had taken responsibility for his actions. In court, Bear's attorney, Joseph Thibodeau, painted his client as "a father figure for his people," noting Bear's tireless dedication to making a better life for the band. For the past several years, Bear's quest has brought him head-to-head with Utah's governor and Legislature over a proposed lease with utility company consortium Private Fuel Storage to build a nuclear waste storage facility on the Tooele County reservation. The deal has also bitterly divided tribal members. In court, Bear apologized to his family and to his tribe. "I'm deeply sorry for any problems I've caused my family at home and any embarrassment to the tribe for my tax liability." Jenkins suggested that Bear hire professional help to keep the band's books clear. Jenkins also ordered Bear to settle things with the IRS for 1999, 2000 and 2001 within four months and to submit a copy of a written agreement with the IRS with the court. The judge did leave the door open for Bear's probation to be shortened for good behavior. Although noted as unrelated to the charges, Bear was also ordered to abstain from drugs or alcohol and would be tested. Outside court, some Goshute Band members expressed disappointment with the sentence. "Leon has let a lot of people down in the past," Margene Bellcreek said. "He's walked away with just a slap on the hand." Bellcreek said what makes her most upset is that prosecutors dropped charges related to the alleged $160,000 in double-billed funds. "Now we will never know how much money is missing," she said. Former band vice chairwoman, Mary Allen, remained skeptical that Bear will be able to heal the tribe. With his term as chairman coming up in November, Allen said she feared Bear will try to find a way to extend his term. Outside court, Bear dodged television cameras but did say he felt the sentence was fair. His father, Lawrence Bear, said he also felt the sentence was fair and blamed the tribal unrest on a "few dissident members." E-mail: gfattah@desnews.com -------- MILITARY -------- arms China Scolds U.S. for Blocking Israeli Arms Sale By Edward Cody Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, June 28, 2005; A08 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700351_pf.html BEIJING, June 27 -- Accusing the Bush administration of "carping" and "outside interference," China issued a sharp complaint Monday after Israel cancelled a controversial Israeli-Chinese arms deal under pressure from the United States. The Israeli decision halted the sale of drone aircraft capable of seeking out radar installations. It was the result of a U.S. campaign to block China from obtaining advanced military technology that could be used against Taiwan and U.S. forces supporting the island in any confrontation. As part of the campaign, the Bush administration also pressured European countries against lifting their arms embargo on China, winning at least a delay in a decision to do so. The Israeli government's decision is similar to its cancellation in 2000 of a $1 billion deal to sell Phalcon early warning radar planes to China. The Israeli cancellation caused irritation in Beijing, where the government has been pushing a military modernization program to bring the People's Liberation Army into the high-tech age and strengthen its ability to dissuade Taiwan from declaring formal independence. Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing visited Jerusalem last week when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was also there to discuss, among other things, the Bush administration's argument against the arms deal. While the content of Li's discussions with Israeli officials was not revealed, he was believed to be urging completion of the sale. The Chinese Foreign Ministry, reacting Monday to reports of the cancellation, said cooperation "in every respect" between Israel and China was good not only for the two countries involved, but also for the prospect of peace and stability in the Middle East. Such contact will not harm other countries, the ministry added, referring to the United States. "Therefore, other countries should not be carping about this," a statement said. "We believe both sides, in developing their bilateral ties, should support the principles of independence and sovereignty and overcome the factor of outside interference." The disputed deal involved new, improved components for Harpy anti-radar drones. Israel Aircraft Industries sold about 100 of the delta-winged drones to China for more than $50 million in the mid and late 1990s. The aircraft, which have a range of about 310 miles, were considered important because they could destroy radar used to guide the surface-to-air missiles that would be instrumental in Taiwan's defense against potential attacks by Chinese missiles and aircraft . The United States did not protest when it learned Israel had sold China the drones, which do not incorporate U.S. technology. But U.S. officials did object when they learned of the 2004 deal for new components. Those components had been described as spare parts, but in fact, U.S. officials said, they amounted to a significant upgrade that would broaden the drones' range and improve their ability to home in on enemy radar. The deal, they argued, ignored a 2003 U.S. request to halt all military sales to China. In the new agreement with Washington reported by the Israeli press and local officials, Israel promised to allow the Pentagon to review future arms sales to prevent such disputes. The terms of the accord are to be finalized this week when an Israeli delegation visits Washington, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. As described in Jerusalem, the agreement also means the Harpy components that China sent to Israel last summer for modification will not be returned. The report in Haaretz said that the Israeli government expects to compensate China for backing out of the deal and keeping the equipment. Correspondent Scott Wilson in Jerusalem contributed to this report. -------- iraq Police open fire on Iraq crowd -witnesses Iraqi police run after opening fire on demonstrators in the central Iraqi town of Samawa June 28, 2005. Police opened fire on the crowd of demonstrators on Tuesday wounding seven protesters, including one man who was shot in the head, witnesses and hospital staff said. Photo by Mohammed Ameen/Reuters Jun 28, 2005 Reuters http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=888104 SAMAWA, Iraq (Reuters) - Police opened fire on a crowd of demonstrators in the southern Iraqi city of Samawa on Tuesday wounding seven protesters, including one man who was shot in the head, witnesses and hospital staff said. Four policemen were also injured by stones, doctors said. Nearly 2,000 unemployed Iraqis were demonstrating in central Samawa because they had not been given jobs in the police in Samawa, 270 km (170 miles) south of Baghdad. * Bush Asks for Nation's Patience on Iraq * Senate OKs Energy Bill; House Fight Looms * Teen Girls Help FBI Nab Cyber Stalkers Protesters threw stones and police opened fire, first with warning shots and then shots aimed into the crowd, Reuters reporter Hamid Fadhil said from the scene. Reuters photographer Mohammed Amin said he saw four demonstrators wounded, one of them hit by a bullet to the head. Raad Selim, a doctor at Samawa's main hospital, said that man was one of two fighting for his life. A further five civilians had gunshot wounds. Of the four policemen hit by stones, two were in a serious condition, Selim said. Two ambulances were badly damaged by the stone-throwing protesters. Foreign troops, apparently from British or Australian units which operate in the area of southern Iraq, observed the violence from the roof of a local authority building. There was no sign of Japanese troops, 550 of whom operate from a base in Samawa, conducting civil reconstruction work. -------- ENERGY Don't play power games with our lives June 28, 2005 The Age http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/dont-play-power-games/2005/06/27/1119724576912.html?oneclick=true http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/NewsArticle.cfm?NewsID=2411 The nuclear option would pose health risks to us and our children, writes Helen Caldicott. Two thousand years ago Hippocrates laid down a dictum: "primum non nocere" - or "first, do no harm" - meaning it is a physician's moral duty to induce no harm or injury to a patient during treatment. Yet certain ill-informed public figures and business leaders, ignorant of the basics of biological science and genetics, who are prescribing the use of nuclear power to inoculate the world against the potential calamitous consequences of global warming are instead violating Hippocrates' dictum at a profound level - for nuclear power will, without doubt, induce harm to global public health in a massive way and over generations. A standard 1000-megawatt nuclear reactor contains the equivalent radiation to that released by the explosion of 1000 Hiroshima-sized bombs. The electricity generated comes at the expense of the production of that radiation. Indisputably, however, radiation induces cancer and genetic disease by causing the mutation of genes. Children and the elderly are 10 to 20 times more sensitive to the effects of radiation than adults. The incubation time - that is, the time between exposure and the manifestation of symptoms - for cancer is five to 60 years. No tumour, though, appears with a "caused by" sign attached. Furthermore, the effects of radiation are cumulative. Each dose adds to the risk of developing cancer or producing genetic disease in the offspring of those exposed to it. That's why we advise people not to have more medical or dental X-rays than necessary. Nuclear power plants routinely discharge millions of curies of radioactive elements into the air and water. The so-called noble gases - krypton, xenon and argon - are readily absorbed by humans through the lungs and deposit in the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs where they irradiate the testicles and ovaries with high-energy gamma radiation. Tritium (radioactive hydrogen) is also routinely released. Tritiated water is absorbed directly through the skin, lungs and digestive tract and is incorporated directly into the genes, where it is mutagenic and carcinogenic. People living near nuclear power plants are exposed, through routine and accidental releases, to these carcinogens and others, and there are plenty of studies in the peer-reviewed medical literature that show that in the areas surrounding older nuclear reactors in the United States there has been an increased incidence of malignancies of various kinds. Then there is nuclear waste. Each year some 30 tonnes of thermally, radioactively hot nuclear waste, laced with highly radioactive elements, is removed from every standard 1000-megawatt reactor and stored in cooling pools, awaiting final disposal. Radioactive elements are tasteless, odourless and invisible. When they enter the environment they concentrate at each step of the food chain - in an aquatic environment in algae, crustaceans, and fish small and large; and on land in grass, milk and meat. These elements also include radioactive iodine, which concentrates in leafy vegetables and milk and, when ingested, migrates to the thyroid gland, where it causes cancer. In Belarus, near Chernobyl, more than 2000 children have had their thyroids removed because of cancer since the reactor melted down in 1986. Then there are strontium 90, which concentrates in milk, including human breast milk, and can induce bone cancer and leukaemia; cesium 137, which concentrates in meat and induces a malignant muscle cancer called rhabdomyosarcoma; and plutonium, named after the god of hell, which is so carcinogenic that one-millionth of a gram causes cancer. Each reactor makes more than 200 kilograms of plutonium a year. Handled like iron by the body, it causes lung cancer, liver cancer, bone cancer and leukaemia, and it crosses the placenta where, like thalidomide, it can damage a genetically normal embryo. It also has a predilection for testicles, so that every northern hemisphere male carries a small load of plutonium in his testicles from weapons-testing days. Eighty thousand tonnes of this high-level waste, which remains radioactive from hundreds to tens of thousands of years, sits in inadequately protected cooling pools throughout the US, while huge quantities also accrue at reactor sites in France, Japan, Germany and other countries. And now we are being asked to consider that producing more of it in Australia is the answer to global warming - when the Government can't find a place to safely deposit the waste we already produce at Lucas Heights. Where will the Government deposit the high-level waste from the nuclear power plants it is now mooting so that it will be in isolation from the ecosphere for thousands of years? The simple truth is that if we create our own high-level waste it will contaminate Australian food over time, inducing epidemics of cancer and leukaemia, particularly in children, while increasing the incidence of genetic diseases in future generations Prognosis: nuclear reactors are potential cancer factories and we should not look to them to solve the problem of global warming. Prescription: As a matter of public health policy, we should not be replacing one damaging technology with another that is even more damaging. Helen Caldicott is president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute. ---- Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman's Statement on Senate Passage of the Energy Bill June 28, 2005, US Department of Energy http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?PUBLIC_ID=18244&BT_CODE=PR_PRESSRELEASES&TT_CODE=PRESSRELEASE WASHINGTON, DC Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today released the following statement regarding Senate passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005: "I commend the Senate for passing a bipartisan comprehensive energy bill, and particularly Senators Domenici and Bingaman for their hard work and cooperation to move this critical legislation forward. With todays action, America is one step closer to greater energy security. This legislation meets many of the objectives put forth by President Bushs National Energy Policy by diversifying our portfolio of fuels and encouraging the use of renewable energy, promoting greater efficiency and conservation, improving the reliability of electricity delivery and providing for additional production of energy resources here at home." "Members of the House and the Senate know that clean, affordable, reliable sources of energy are essential to continued economic growth and job creation in America. I look forward to working with members of the Senate and the House during the conference committee to reach bipartisan consensus and send a bill to the Presidents desk before the August Congressional recess." Media contacts: Anne Womack Kolton, 202/586-4940 Rebecca Neale, 202-586-4940 -------- energy Senate Approves Energy Bill, Must Now Agree With House By J.R. Pegg WASHINGTON, DC, June 28, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005/2005-06-28-10.asp By a vote of 85-12 the Senate on Tuesday passed its version of the energy bill, setting up another showdown with the House over how the United States should shape its energy future. Congress has failed to agree on an energy plan three times in the past four years and several major policy disputes must still be resolved - including differences over the cost of the plan, oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, renewable energy production, and provisions concerning the fuel additives MTBE and ethanol. "We still have a lot of work ahead of us," said Senator Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican and lead author of the bill. The Senate bill calls for an estimated $18 billion in energy tax credits and incentives to be spent over 10 years, with a large portion devoted to renewable energy production and energy conservation. The majority of the $10.6 billion in tax credits included in the House energy bill is aimed at helping the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries and the legislation also calls for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Senate version is silent on Arctic drilling. Unlike the House bill, the Senate version includes a measure mandating 10 percent of the nations electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020. The Senate also approved $5 billion in incentives to cut energy demand, including tax credits for hybrid vehicles and provisions to encourage greater energy efficiency from appliances and power systems. The House bill provides only $500 million for similar programs. Minnesota driver fills up his flexible fuel vehicle with E85, which is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. (Photo courtesy American Lung Association) Differences also remain over MTBE, or methyl tertiary-butyl ether, and ethanol. The Senate wants the ethanol mandate doubled to 8 million gallons the House approved only five million gallons. In addition, the House bill grants MTBE manufacturers safe harbor from litigation based on contamination of drinking water supplies, contains language phasing out use of the oxygenate by 2014, and gives MTBE manufacturers $1.75 billion for transition costs. The Senate legislation bill does not address MTBE and it was dispute over the issue that helped kill the energy bill in 2003. Twenty states have passed bans on MTBE in gasoline and the additive has contaminated water supplies across the nation. Critics of the MTBE liability waiver including the U.S. Conference of Mayors - say manufacturers knew of the toxicity of the chemical and should be liable for cleanup costs that some estimate at $29 billion. President George W. Bush again called on Congress iron out their differences and send him a final bill before the August recess. "The American people expect their leaders to work together to help provide economic and energy security," Bush said. " I urge the House and Senate to resolve their differences quickly." Bush said the legislation would boost the nations economy by "addressing the root causes of high energy prices and reducing our dependence on foreign oil." In March, Georgia Power Company signed a contract to install scrubbers on one of the nation's largest coal-fired power plants, the Bowen plant in northwest Georgia. (Photo courtesy Georgia Power) Sierra Club President Carl Pope said the Senate bill "contains a few rays of hope" notably the renewable energy and efficiency provisions - but overall does little positive for the environment or the nations energy future. The legislation does "virtually nothing to lower our dependence on oil [and] funnels billions of taxpayer dollars to polluting energy industries," Pope said. Environmentalists criticized a Senate provision that calls for a new federal inventory of the nations offshore oil and gas deposits, including areas currently off limits to development. Opponents of the measure fear it is the first step toward lifting a 22 year ban on offshore drilling in many of the nations coastal waters and could harm the environment and the economies of affected coastal states. "This inventory is not a benign compiling of a grocery list of resources," said Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat. An effort led by a bipartisan group of senators from coastal states failed by a vote of 44-52 to strip the language from the bill. The Senate bill falls short for environmentalists on a number of other fronts, including fuel economy and global warming. "Requiring Detroit to produce cars and SUVs with better gas mileage is the only thing politicians could have done to help consumers and to cut the nation's huge dependence on Middle East oil," said Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. The Senate rejected that step, the House didn't even consider it, and President Bush opposes it." The roof of the 12-story Chicago City Hall building has been retrofitted with a 22,000 square-foot rooftop garden. The primary goal of this installation, which was completed in 2001, was to demonstrate that green roofs help to reduce urban air temperature. (Photo by Katrin Scholz-Barth courtesy NREL) By a 60-38 margin the Senate again rejected a proposal by Arizona Republican John McCain and Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman to force industry to reduce greenhouse gas pollution to 2000 levels by 2010. In October 2003, the Senate rejected the McCain-Lieberman plan by a vote of 55-43. The Senate instead opted for a resolution of support to slow the pace of emission increases and authorization but not guaranteed funding of some $2 billion in incentives and loans to support technology development and voluntary greenhouse gas cuts by industry. McCain said the Senate would eventually recognize the weight of scientific evidence that tougher action on global warming is merited and vowed to continue pushing his plan. "We will be back," McCain said. "There will be even more definitive statements by the world scientific community, more manifestations of this terrible calamity that is besetting this great world of ours, and over time we will win. I am very confident of that because we must act." ---- Key Provisions of US Senate Energy Bill REUTERS USA: June 28, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/31438/story.htm WASHINGTON - The US Senate is scheduled to vote on Tuesday on a $14 billion bill that would boost domestic production of oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear and alternative energy sources. The House of Representatives in April approved a separate energy bill. The House and Senate versions must be reconciled before a bill can be sent to President George W. Bush. Negotiations between the Senate and House to work out a final energy package are expected to take place during July. Key provisions of the Senate bill include: OIL/NATURAL GAS * Direct the president to reduce US oil demand by 1 million barrels a day by 2015. * Require a federal inventory of oil and natural gas reserves in US offshore waters, including areas where energy exploration is now banned. * Provide incentives for natural gas production from deep wells in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico. * Streamline leasing and permitting rules for tar sands, Outer Continental Shelf, oil shale drilling projects. * Increase capacity of the US emergency oil reserve to 1 billion barrels from the current 700 million barrels. ELECTRICITY * Impose reliability operating standards on utilities to protect the US electric grid from blackouts. * Give Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, not the states, exclusive authority to approve new liquefied natural gas import terminals. * Boost FERC civil penalties for companies that manipulate electricity and natural gas markets. * Repeal Public Utility Holding Company Act, which barred certain utility mergers, and give FERC more merger review authority. CLIMATE CHANGE * Offer an estimated $2 billion in tax breaks, loans and credits to companies for technology to voluntarily reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Such projects may include coal gasification and carbon sequestration. ETHANOL * Require US gasoline refiners to double to 8 billion gallons the amount of ethanol additive used by 2012. California will be exempted from the standard during summer months. CONSERVATION * Set standards to reduce energy use by commercial freezers, refrigerators, clothes washers and air conditioning. * Offer $250 million in rebates for energy efficient appliances over five years. MISCELLANEOUS * Offer $200 million a year for technology research to make coal a less-dirty fuel. * Extend federal insurance for nuclear power plant operators through 2025. * Build new nuclear test reactor at Idaho National Laboratory. ---- Nuclear power: time for a reasoned debate By Dennis Jensen - Online Opinion, Tuesday, June 28, 2005 http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3596 A crisis point is approaching in oil production and consumption. There will come a time where demand will outstrip supply and the most viable alternative energy source is nuclear energy. There is a culture of fear surrounding revisiting the nuclear debate. The images of Chernobyl still permeate the minds of many, and while this was a tragic event in the worlds history, the type of technology used at that plant has been abandoned. The media consistently reminds us that an alternative energy source must not come from nuclear, but from so-called green sources - wind, tidal or solar power options - but which are economically unviable and unsustainable for the amount of energy we need to produce. We need to explore the reasons why these options can no longer be at the forefront of public policy on energy and why, in their place, there should be an action plan for nuclear energy. Tidal power has been mentioned as a method of generating power, particularly in Derby in the northwest of Western Australia where there are 12-metre tides. The amount of power that would be generated by such a proposal is only about 48 megawatts, or 48 million watts, of tidal power. The problem is to generate enough power to meet Australias current needs you would need 900 tidal power stations like the one proposed for Derby. Another method is wind power. Using state-of-the-art wind turbines - and anyone who has been down to Albany or Esperance would know that they are huge structures - we would need 22,500 to generate Australias current electricity needs. -------- ACTIVISTS Mood Split in Town Where Bush to Speak In Military Town of Fort Bragg, N.C., Site of Bush's Address Tonight, Mood Is Split on Iraq War By ESTES THOMPSON Associated Press Writer The Associated Press Jun 28, 2005 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=888905 FORT BRAGG, N.C. In the year since President Bush and U.S. allies returned official sovereignty to Iraq, life in the community dominated by one of the Army's largest installations has changed little. Soldiers from Fort Bragg have continued to march into Iraq. And they continue to die. In the past year, 100 North Carolina-based troops have died in the war, trailing only the toll of 180 from California, according to an Associated Press analysis. As President Bush plans to come here to make a major, nationally televised policy speech Tuesday night, the mounting casualties and insurgent violence have started to test the public patience for the war, even in a place where signs along the streets boast steadfast support of the troops. On one such street off base in Fayetteville, 26-year-old Carrie Dimmick said it's about time the United States got its soldiers out of Iraq. "We told them if they established a government we would back off," she said. "They established a government, but we're still there. I feel like the war is doing more harm than good." Like many people in this area, 40-year-old day-care center operator Tommy Jones said he initially believed the war was a successful response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Now, it seems like we've been there too long," said Jones, who was a Marine 20 years ago. "There have been too many casualties." A new statewide poll released Tuesday shows increasing doubt in military-friendly North Carolina over whether the war is worthwhile. Forty-two percent of 600 active voters questioned Friday through Sunday agreed the war has been worth it, but 49 percent say it has not, the poll conducted for The News & Observer of Raleigh and WRAL-TV found. The survey by Research 2000 had a sampling error margin of plus and minus 4 percentage points. In January 2004, the survey found 58 percent of North Carolina voters saying the war was worthwhile. Similarly, the latest AP-Ipsos national poll found public doubts about the war reaching a high point with more than half saying that invading Iraq was a mistake.