NucNews - June 30, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer Washington, DC July 30, 2005 From: "Michael Mariotte" Date: Fri Jul 1, 2005 3:53pm For Immediate Release Nuclear Information and Resource Service 1424 16th Street NW, #404, Washington, DC 20036 202.328.0002; fax: 202.462.2183 The National Academies of Science released an over 700-page report yesterday on the risks from ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation-that even very low doses can cause cancer. Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than previously thought. The committee reviewed some additional ways that radiation causes damage to cells. Among the reports conclusions are: There is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure. Even exposure to background radiation causes some cancers. Additional exposures cause additional risks. Radiation causes other health effects such as heart disease and stroke, and further study is needed to predict the doses that result in these non-cancer health effects. It is possible that children born to parents that have been exposed to radiation could be affected by those exposures. The "bystander effect" is an additional, newly recognized method by which radiation injures cells that were not directly hit but are in the vicinity of those that were. "Genomic instability" can be caused by exposure to low doses of radiation and according to the report "might contribute significantly to radiation cancer risk." These new mechanisms for radiation damage were not included in the risk estimates reported by the BEIR VII report, but were recommended for further study. The Linear-No-Threshold model (LNT) for predicting health effects from radiation (dose-response) is retained, meaning that every exposure causes some risk and that risks are generally proportional to dose. The Dose and Dose-Rate Effectiveness Factor or DDREF which had been suggested in the 1990 BEIR V report to be applied at low doses, has been reduced from 2 to 1.5. That means the projected number of health effects at low doses are greater than previously thought. RADIATION RISKIER THAN THOUGHT-- RISKS TO PUBLIC and NUCLEAR WORKERS The BEIR VII risk numbers indicate that about 1 in 100 members of the public would get cancer if exposed to 100 millirads (1milliGray) per year for a 70-year lifetime.[1] This is essentially the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's allowable radiation dose for members of the public. In addition, 1 in about 5 workers[2] would get cancer if exposed to the legally allowable occupational doses[3] over their 50 years in the workforce. These risks are much higher than permitted for other carcinogens. Specifically, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows members of the public to get 100 millirems or mr (1 milliSievert or mSv) per year of radiation in addition to background. The BEIR VII report (page 500, Table 12-9) estimates that this level will result in approximately 1 (1.142) cancer in every 100 people exposed at 100 mr/yr which includes 1 fatal cancer in every 175 people so exposed (5.7 in 1000)[4]. The risk of getting cancer from radiation (in BEIR VII) is increased by about a third from current government risk figures (FGR13): BEIR VII estimates that 11.42 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem (1,000 millirems or 10 mSv). The US Environmental Protection Agency Federal Guidance Report 13 estimates that 8.46 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service interprets this as further evidence that unnecessary radiation exposures should be avoided. "This means that the government is not justified in deregulating nuclear power and weapons waste-releasing it to regular trash or "recycling" it into everyday household items as proposed by 5 US federal agencies at the behest of nuclear waste generators hoping to save money," stated Diane D'Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director at Nuclear Information and Resource Service Radioactive (NIRS). "This also means that remediation of radioactive sites should be done to cleaner levels and that nuclear transport standards should be strengthened." Cindy Folkers, NIRS Energy and Health Project Director stated "These findings confirm that all levels of radiation are harmful. Since nuclear power routinely releases long-lasting radiation into the air, water and soil, we must avoid a new generation of nuclear power to prevent unnecessary exposures." Endnotes: [1] NAS Report in Brief June 2005 BEIR VII: Health Effects from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation pp 2-3 (for 1 cancer in 100 people exposed to 100mSv or 10 r ). Endnotes-continued: More detailed calculation: National Academies of Science, Prepublication Copy, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII Phase 2, June 29, 2005 page 500 Table 12-9. Table 12-9 indicates that average risk (cancer incidence for males and females) of getting leukemia or solid cancers is 1142 out of 100,000 exposed to 10 r. Thus a member of the public who lives for 70 years and receives the permitted 100 mr (or 0.1 r)/year could receive 7 r or 7000 mr in his/her lifetime. [US Nuclear Regulatory Commission permits 0.1 r or 100 mr per year above background to members of the public.] Comparing to BEIR VII's risk estimate of 1142 in 100,000 at 10 r, to the 7 r lifetime dose permitted by NRC:(7r/10r= 0.7) we get 0.7 x 1142 = 799 cancers in 100,000 population at 7 r or 799cancers/100,000 exposed = 1 cancer in 125 exposed (to 7 r over lifetime). [2] At 0.1 Sv (100 mSv or 10 r) the risk is 1 in 100 getting cancer (NAS Report in Brief Jun 2005 pp2-3) At 2.5 Sv (worker legal dose) the dose and risk are 25x higher or 25 in 100 (or 1 in 4) exposed getting cancer...but since workers are exposed later in life than the general public, adjusting for age would correct the risk to about 1 in 5 exposed to the full legal amount for their working lives getting cancer from those exposures. [3] 10 CFR 20 subpart C, Occupational Dose Limits limit workers to total effective dose equivalent of 5000 millirems or 50 milliSieverts (5 rems or 0.05 Sv) per year. If it is low LET radiation, this is comparable to 5000 millirads or 50 milliGray. [4] National Academies of Science, Prepublication Copy, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII Phase 2, June 29, 2005 page 500 Table 12-9. There will be 570 fatal cancers in 100,000 exposed at 0.1Gy or 10 r. (100,000/570= 175) Approx 1 in 175 so exposed will get fatal cancer. -30- Dear Colleagues - Below is a letter which I promised to do at the meeting on Savannah River Site last week in Augusta, Georgia. The main reason for the letter was originally intended to simply affirm a GAO report on MOX (and plutonium disposition) but I couldn't help supporting the cut by the House in the MOX plant funding. SRS has confirmed to me that "site preparation" for the MOX plant has not begun - see this mentioned in the letter. And, GAO told me last week that no GAO report on MOX had been yet requested. So, I now solicit GROUP SIGN ONS. Small edits, etc. welcome. Please pass to other US groups which might sign. Hope to send it in right after July 4 break. Gracias a todos - Tom (tom.clements@wdc.greenpeace.org) July x, 2005 Dear Chairman Hobson, We are writing to you to express support for action taken by the U.S. House of Representatives with respect to the U.S. plutonium disposition program. First, your Appropriations Committee's FY 2006 report duly noted that the Mixed Oxide (MOX) project currently has a prior year balance of $650 million and that it would be "an irresponsible act to allocate hundreds of millions for a program that is currently prohibited from spending the funds." As those of us who are close observers of developments at the Savannah River Site have indicated to Congress in the past, the Department of Energy (DOE) has perpetually misrepresented the status of the MOX program. In past years it was clear that construction of the MOX plant was far away yet DOE inaccurately indicated to Congress that construction would begin soon. DOE has once again mislead Congress about the status of the MOX program. DOE told Congress in February, when the FY 2006 budget request was submitted, that "site preparation" for the MOX plant would begin in the 3rd Quarter of FY 2005. Yet, as the 3rd Quarter has now ended we have determined that site preparation has not yet begun, thus placing Congress in the position of having to once again make decisions based on incorrect information supplied by DOE. In the upcoming House-Senate Conference Committee on Energy & Water Appropriations we urge you to stand firm in withholding construction funds from the MOX plant. As you note in this year's Energy & Water report, allocating the request for MOX construction will mean that DOE would hold a balance of over $1 billion for a program which continues to face problems and has moved little over the past few years. Second, we are pleased to see that the House report states that "the Committee will recommend a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the realistic expenditure rates for the MOX construction project if the liability impasse is resolved to assess the most efficient use of the large uncosted balances that exist on this project." We agree that such a GAO report is needed given costs for the MOX plant have surely increased under a schedule which continues to slip. However, given the large number of unresolved issues concerning the overall plutonium disposition program, we would urge you to expand the request. We believe that a comprehensive review of all aspects of the plutonium disposition program is needed, including a look at the revived vitrification program, the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF), waste management plans given that the Waste Solidification Building has been placed on hold, as well as other issues related to design and construction of the MOX plant. While we are aware that a GAO report will be out soon on plutonium storage at SRS it is now time for a more in-depth report to be started on the "dual track" disposition approach which has now reemerged. As the House reports notes, the MOX program continues to drag on and on with "no nuclear non-proliferation or national security benefits." With more delays likely in the MOX program it may well be time to rethink the plutonium disposition approach which DOE is now pursuing. Thanks very much for your consideration of the views expressed in this letter and for letting us know the status of your request for a GAO study. Please direct your response to Tom Clements at Greenpeace International, 702 H Street, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20001, tel. 202-319-2411, tom.clements@wdc.greenpeace.org. Sincerely, cc: Energy & Water Subcommittee members ---- NRC REPORTS LOWEST AVERAGE OCCUPATIONAL DOSE EVER FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WORKERS IN 2004 Last revised Thursday, June 30, 2005 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2005/05-097.html The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s latest compilation of nuclear power plant worker doses at U.S. reactors shows the average annual collective dose per plant is 100 person-rem, the lowest ever and half of the dose recorded 10 years ago. To determine a plant's collective dose, individual doses are added up and the result is expressed in person-rem. The average American receives a dose of about 360 millirem every year from all radioactive sources; the average nuclear plant worker in recent years received about an additional 160 millirem each year on the job. NRC regulations allow workers at nuclear power plants to safely receive a job-related dose of up to 5,000 millirem each year. “This report shows nuclear power plant operators have very effective plans and procedures in place to reduce workers’ exposure while ensuring the necessary work is done to NRC requirements,” said Bruce Boger, Director of the Division of Inspection Program Management in the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The nation’s 69 pressurized-water reactors had an average annual collective dose of 71 person-rem, down 22 percent from 2003 and the lowest ever for PWRs. The 35 boiling-water reactors had an average annual collective dose of 156 person-rem, the second-lowest ever. The full report is available on the NRC’s Web-based document database, ADAMS, by entering ML051530296 in the search function at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html. ---- Low Radiation Doses Still Pose Risk, Panel Finds By Shankar Vedantam Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, June 30, 2005; A07 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062902940_pf.html The health risk posed by radiation from X-rays and other medical procedures is so small that it should not deter people from seeking needed medical care, according to a panel of senior scientists who examined the risks of low-level radiation. Although the risks from such radiation are small, the panel assembled by the National Research Council also concluded that there is no dose of radiation, however low, that can be deemed completely safe. Richard Monson, professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health and the chairman of the science panel, said people should consult with their physicians before choosing optional medical services such as whole-body computerized tomography (CT) scans -- an increasingly popular diagnostic tool intended to detect medical problems at an early stage. Monson was careful to say that there is no clear evidence that such scans, which subject people to about 100 times the radiation of a chest X-ray, are harmful. Rather, he said, people should follow the common-sense dictate of avoiding radiation whenever possible, especially when their physicians do not think such interventions are necessary. The report is the seventh in a series of reports termed the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation being issued by the nation's premier science, engineering and medical advisory group, the National Academies. Environmental advocates said the report's findings represent a victory because some pro-nuclear groups have advanced the argument that radiation below a certain low threshold is harmless or even beneficial. The report said the best evidence suggests that even "the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans." It estimates that the amount of radiation in about 10 whole-body scans, or about 1,000 chest X-rays, would result in a 1 percent risk of developing cancer if it were delivered all at once. Monson and Ethel Gilbert, a biostatistician at the National Cancer Institute, said the report largely strengthens conclusions about the risks of cancer from radiation. "From a public health point of view, prudence is a guideline," Monson said. "What is unnecessary radiation is up to the individual." Daniel Hirsch, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, and Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, both nonprofit advocacy groups, said the numbers identified by the report show that the risks of radiation and cancer are greater than previously thought and warrant strengthened regulation. Paul H. Genoa of the Nuclear Energy Institute, however, said the report confirms long-held industry views about low-level radiation: "The risks are very small, and the current regulations are protective of public health and safety." ---- Study Shows Radiation Causes Cancer but Rarely REUTERS USA: June 30, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/31479/newsDate/30-Jun-2005/story.htm WASHINGTON - Exposure to everyday sources of radiation, mostly medical X-rays, raises the risk of cancer but not by much and there is no clear line between a harmless dose and a disease-causing dose, an expert panel reported on Wednesday. People should think twice about having unnecessary high-dose X-rays such as the full-body CAT scans being offered by some clinics, the panel advised, but otherwise should be reassured by the findings. The report from the National Research Council updates 1990 findings based mostly on survivors of the 1945 atomic bomb attacks against Japan, about 45 percent of whom are still alive. A low dose of about 100 millisieverts of radiation -- the equivalent of 1,000 chest X-rays -- can be expected to cause cancer in one out of every 100 people, the report finds. "About 42 additional people in the same group would be expected to develop solid cancer or leukemia from other causes. Roughly half of these cancers would result in death," adds the report, available at http://national-academies.org. Cancer is the second-biggest killer in much of the world after heart disease. The American Cancer Society estimates that nearly 1.4 million Americans will learn this year that they have cancer and 563,700 will die of it, but it says two thirds of cases are caused by tobacco use, poor eating, lack of exercise and obesity. The report ties in with another issued on Wednesday, from the International Agency for Research on Cancer in France, which studied more than 400,000 nuclear industry workers and found they had a 10 percent increased risk of death from cancer. The National Research Council is part of the National Academy of Sciences, an independent organization set up by Congress to guide government on matters of health and science. This is its seventh report on radiation. NO SAFE EXPOSURE "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said committee chair Richard Monson, a professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston. "The health risks -- particularly the development of solid cancers in organs -- rise proportionally with exposure." But the report said few people are exposed to very much radiation. It recommends further study of infants and children exposed to radiation through X-rays or radiation treatment for cancer. It also recommends more study of people who get frequent doses, such as those who get repeated CAT scans. "I think what we can do is assure people that medical radiation as currently done for good reasons is part of medical care," Monson told a news conference. "But ... prudence should be the guideline and exposure to any unnecessary radiation should be avoided and what is unnecessary is up to an individual." Most sources of radiation are natural -- gamma rays from space, and radon from the ground, air and water. "These sources account for about 82 percent of human exposure," the report reads. The 18 percent of human-made radiation comes mostly from medical radiation but also tobacco, televisions and smoke detectors. -------- africa Pebble bed project met with outrage June 30, 2003 By Sapa http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=552&fSetId=662&fArticleId=178402 Johannesburg - Earthlife Africa has expressed shock and outrage at the approval by the department of environmental affairs of an assessment that says the environmental impact of a planned pocket nuclear reactor near Cape Town is acceptable. The environmental organisation has already secured a court date, on September 9, to continue its court action against Eskom's proposed construction of a pebble bed modular reactor at Koeberg. An urgent application to the Pretoria high court failed in early June. By approving the report before the court case was heard, the department appeared "to be ignoring the legal process, a case of bad manners at the least", Earthlife Africa said. "The department appears to have adopted a cart-before-the horse approach, washing its hands of any responsibility for the critical environmental issues: those of safety and waste," the environmental organisation's Liz McDaid said. "We are in the process of consulting with our legal advisers but we will certainly consider taking the decision on appeal. Judicial review is not ruled out." Eskom welcomed the department's decision, saying it paved the way for the next phase of a "locally driven, leading edge nuclear technology project". The power utility said the decision was "a major step towards the completion of the detailed feasibility phase of the project, which included an intensive environmental impact assessment performed by independent consultants". It would be inappropriate to comment on specific issues during the 30-day period in which any party may lodge appeals with the department of environmental affairs, Eskom said, since the appeals would be handled by that ministry. Earthlife Africa said that not only had the impact assessment process had been "flawed", but it also found the "Pontius Pilate [washing its hands] attitude of the government to its responsibilities extremely worrying". "Despite considered opposition from public and environmental groups, including opposition from the Cape Town local authority, despite no solution for the spent fuel, despite using consultants who had worked for Eskom for the last 15 years, and despite numerous process and content problems, the government has approved" the assessment report. Earthlife Africa also said it had hoped that the recent report on the long-term cost of nuclear power in Britain, and the multibillion rand cleanup bill that country, "and ultimately its people", would have to bear, would have been enough to convince the South African government that nuclear power was uneconomical. The department was not available for comment. -------- britain E.ON's UK Arm says Ready to Explore Nuclear Power Story by Stuart Penson REUTERS UK: June 30, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/31477/newsDate/30-Jun-2005/story.htm LONDON - The British arm of German utility E.ON has told the UK government it is ready to explore the possibility of building nuclear power stations, the company's chief executive said on Wednesday. "We have signalled to the UK government that we are prepared to talk to them, explore possibilites as they reach conclusions in this area," said Paul Golby, chief executive of E.ON UK, Britain's number two gas and power supplier. Golby said E.ON UK was a long way from making investment decisions on nuclear, but he detected a shift in public opinion. "I happen to believe the mood is changing and will continue to change, but this will have to be driven by the government to make a step change," he told analysts in London. Most of Britain's ageing reactors are due to start closing from 2010. Opposition to building new plants has softened as the government faces the need to secure future energy supplies while also tackling climate change by cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear plants produce hardly any carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. "It may be not surprising that the nuclear debate has reawakened in the UK and is being treated both seriously and urgently by the UK government," said Golby. E.ON UK has no nuclear plants but its German parent operates reactors in Germany. Golby said investment in new reactors would require the government to act on issues such as rules for licensing plants, and nuclear waste. On decommissioning of future reactors, he said the UK had a suitable framework in place. "There's a model and there's no reason why that can't be used as a basis for future decommissioning," said Golby. Golby said he thought it would be very difficult for a stand-alone nuclear operator to survive in the UK's wholesale energy market. New plants would need to be able to hedge their exposure to the power market against a customer base. British Energy, which operates most of the UK's reactors, had to be rescued by the government after collapsing power prices left it close to bankruptcy. BE had no retail arm to hedge its exposure to the wholesale market. -------- canada Nuclear watchdog poised to intervene PETER CALAMAI TORONTO STAR June 30, 2005au http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1120083012168&call_pageid=968256289824&col=968342212737 OTTAWA—The federal nuclear watchdog is weighing extraordinary legal action to ensure health and safety if more Ontario nuclear power plants are picketed by striking Hydro One workers. Officials of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission told a regular public meeting here yesterday that contingency plans are being drawn up based on emergency provisions in the federal nuclear control law. An emergency provision of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act says the regulator may "make any order that it considers necessary to protect the environment or the health and safety of persons or to maintain national security." "We're looking at measures that are available to us for continued safe operations and to deal with emergencies," said Paul Webster, acting chief of power reaction regulation. Asked for details, he gave none. Commission staff cited picketing last week during a Darlington nuclear plant shift change that backed up traffic at its gate for several kilometres. Emergency vehicles would have had "considerable difficulty" reaching the station's four Candu reactors if something had gone wrong, said Garry Schwarz, the commission official who oversees Darlington. The pickets belong to the Society of Energy Professionals at Hydro One, Ontario's energy distributor. Unionized nuclear plant staff are not on strike. -------- depleted uranium Costs of care for veterans: high and rising By Brad Knickerbocker, The Christian Science Monitor Posted 6/30/2005 8:22 PM http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-30-csm-veterans_x.htm Veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be much on the minds of their countrymen this Independence Day weekend. Marching in town parades. Lauded in speeches. But the pride and the bunting are also a reminder that the price — and cost — of war go on many years after the fighting stops, that "to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan," as Abraham Lincoln put it, is as much an issue of national security today as are armored Humvees and trustworthy translators of Arabic. The Senate got into a bipartisan snit over funding for veterans this week, Republicans and Democrats both raising alarms over a $1 billion shortfall for the Department of Veterans Affairs this fiscal year. On Wednesday, the Senate approved $1.5 billion in emergency funding for the VA. But the funding issue raises questions about the VA's ability to handle an increased workload as a result of the war. With nearly 240,000 employees, the VA is larger than all other federal departments except the Pentagon. But even before the "war on terrorism" began, it had to scramble in dealing with the needs of 7.5 million enrolled vets, including a large number of homeless — 33% of homeless men in the U.S. are veterans. Now, thousands of Iraq war vets are being added to the rolls, including many who have been wounded and will require lifelong care. "Clearly, VA is not ready for this," says Dan Smith, a retired U.S. Army colonel and Vietnam veteran. Since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began, an average of 474 U.S. service members a month have been wounded, injured or become ill in the war zone. As of last week, the Defense Department put the total at 13,074. But the total number of vets who still need help is much larger than that, and it's growing. As of February, VA officials reported, 85,857 of the 360,674 veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq who had separated from active duty — 24% — had sought healthcare from the VA. This included treatment for both physical injuries and mental health problems. "The bottom line is there is a surge in demand in VA services across the board," Veterans Affairs Secretary James Nicholson told a House panel this week. Earlier this year, Nicholson told lawmakers the VA had used 2002 estimates when assuming that 23,553 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan would need medical care in 2005. Since then that number has been revised upward more than fourfold to 103,000. Part of the reason is the changing nature of war and the casualties it produces. As helicopters did so prominently in Vietnam, new means of transporting and treating the wounded in Iraq are saving lives. But this also means a higher portion of overall casualties will need extended government benefits. During the wars of the 20th century, the ratio of wounded to killed in action was about 3 to 1. In Iraq that ratio is more than 9 to 1. Another new factor is the relatively large number of women who've been in combat, who now face what some experts think are different kinds of post-traumatic stress disorder — called "soldier's heart" during the Civil War. "I'm no psychologist, but my understanding of the perceptual and psychological differences between men and women suggests the likelihood that PTSD reactions will be different, requiring nuanced treatment for a devastating condition when extensive clinical experience doesn't exist for women," says Colonel Smith, now a military analyst with the Friends Committee on National Legislation in Washington. "This in itself will add to costs." PTSD for all returning vets — men and women — may be of particular concern because of the nature of a counterinsurgency fought among, and in some cases against, civilians. Another unknown is the long-term effects of exposure to depleted uranium, suspected of causing the "Gulf War Syndrome" ailments experienced by veterans of the 1991 war in Iraq. Thousands of rounds of armor-piercing shells made of depleted uranium were used by U.S. and British forces in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Given that some 26 million Americans have served in the military, support for veterans comes from across the political spectrum. Liberal Senator Patty Murray (D) of Washington and her conservative colleague Larry Craig (R) of Idaho led the charge for more VA funding — the emergency $1.5 billion came at Sen. Murray's bequest. Groups from the American Legion to Vietnam Veterans Against the War have weighed in on the issue. At the same time, says national security analyst Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute in Oakland, "Veterans' benefits are like any other government program — that is, they are a result of politics." For example copayments on prescription drugs are lower through the VA than private health plans and Medicare. Others point to waste and abuse in an agency with a $68 billion annual budget meant to provide services for millions of people. "The Inspector General of the [VA] estimates that program overpayments exceed $800 million per year, mostly because of fraudulent benefit claims," notes a report by the Heritage Foundation. "While the VA is working to reduce these overpayments, significant opportunities remain. In addition, the VA has not been sufficiently diligent in collecting the $3 billion in debt owed to the department by loan program recipients." Since taking office President Bush has hiked spending for veterans' medical care by more than 40%. More veterans are enrolled in healthcare services, the waiting time for such care has been shortened, and the backlog of disability claims has been reduced. At the same time, the administration has attempted to reduce costs in certain areas. For example, it tried to double the copayment veterans are charged for prescription drugs (from $7 to $15), and impose a new $250 annual fee for using government health care services. Under pressure from veterans' groups, Congress refused to go along. ---- Iraq Veterans discuss health problems By SUZAN CLARKE THE NY JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: June 30, 2005) http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050630/NEWS03/506300388/1019/NEWS03 Groans and gasps met the graphic images of deformed children in Iraq, and several people sighed again as they listened to veterans of the war there discuss the effects of depleted uranium. About 40 people gathered last night at the Martin Luther King Multi-Purpose Center to see the documentary "The Invisible War: Depleted Uranium and the Politics of Radiation." They listened to Army National Guard Spc. Gerard Matthew and Sgt. Herbert Reed. The two Bronx men were among those from the National Guard's Orangeburg-based 442nd Military Police Company who were tested for depleted uranium exposure. They spoke about numerous health problems that they said were caused by exposure to the metal while serving in the Middle East. The film profiled several military personnel who served during the Gulf War in 1991. Among the conditions they reported were loss of muscle function, headaches and impaired bowel and urinary function. The program also discussed birth defects in exposed Iraqi children and American children of exposed parents. Several times, when Pentagon and other military officials appeared and discounted claims linking depleted uranium with health problems, many in the audience audibly scoffed. All appeared horrified — some moaned — when they were confronted with the video images of Iraqi children and infants, their young faces wizened, some with severely bloated bellies and others plagued by grotesque protruding tumors, ulcerated faces and misshapen or missing limbs. Matthew said he did not expect that his own daughter, who had her first birthday Tuesday, would have a defect that so eerily mirrored what he had seen so many times in Iraq. "It just bugged me out. I lost it," he said, recalling the moment he realized that his daughter's being born with fingers missing from her right hand could directly be linked to his own health problems. Before Victoria's birth, Matthew, a 31-year-old occupational therapist, said he had suffered dermatitis, chronic migraine headaches, numbness in his limbs and other problems. He said he tested positive for depleted uranium exposure. The 12-year veteran of the armed forces is angry, particularly because of what he called the military's continued reluctance to acknowledge a problem and act decisively. The World Health Organization has linked exposure to depleted uranium, which is used in armor-piercing ammunition, to an increased incidence of kidney damage. Exposure also carries a higher risk of leukemia and lung cancer. The U.S. Department of State has said there is no link between exposure to depleted uranium and cancer. It has also cited a study that showed no birth defects in soldiers' children who were born after their parents were exposed to depleted uranium. Reed, who has had body aches as well as several surgeries to treat back and neck problems, talked about the reaction from some people in his unit when he began publicizing his situation. "They were mad at us. They pretty much said that we jumped the gun. We scared their families," Reed, 51, said. "We just want to make sure that we're not passing this on to our families," he said, adding that he was angry at being treated in a less than forthright manner by an organization he had served for 19 years. All he wants, he said, is periodic monitoring and, if necessary, treatment for his condition. Rounds made of depleted uranium are heavier than conventional bullets and can pierce a tank's armor. Once fired, they can release a radioactive dust and traces of uranium can remain after they hit their targets. Last night's event was sponsored by the Rockland Coalition for Peace and Justice, the Veterans for Peace and the Tappan Zee Brigade. ---- War consists of many crimes June 30, 2005 Rutland Herald http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050630/NEWS/506300455/1037 In an otherwise strong editorial ("In praise of leaks," June 15), you say, "The duplicity of the Bush administration in promoting the Iraq war may not qualify as a crime..." There have, of course, been war crimes. Long before the Downing Street memo it was clear that the war had no legal justification, that the campaign of "shock and awe," and the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure, civil society and antiquities, massacre of more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians, U.S. use of depleted uranium, jailing people in secret, deporting them for purposes of torture, condoning and practicing torture in U.S. prison camps would be war crimes even in a "legal" war. So is the question of whether or not the administration may have lied to us into this war relevant in view of all the criminality that followed? Yes, indeed. First, the moral question: When we equivocate and conclude with less than fist-pounding outrage about the administration's duplicity, we are suggesting, as Rumsfeld might say, "Well, peccadilloes happen." Second, the legal question. Isn't lying to Congress a federal crime? Isn't starting an illegal war an international crime? And here's an interesting legal question: Do the deaths of 1,700-plus American and the wounding of perhaps 20,000 then constitute murder? Do some research. And than let us know at what point presidential crimes become impeachable. KATE TAYLOR Clarendon ---- 'One of the most unjust wars in history' AL-AHRAM 30 June - 6 July 2005 http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/749/re4.htm Rhetoric is the least wanted, but as the World Tribunal on Iraq came together, a fierce condemnation of the US-led war against Iraq was the result, reports Gareth Jenkins from Istanbul The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) on Monday condemned the 2003 United States-led attack on Iraq as "one of the most unjust, immoral and cowardly wars in history". Meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, the WTI denounced the governments of the US and UK for what it described as the "supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and Nuremburg Principles." The WTI also charged the UN Security Council with "failing to stop war crimes and crimes against humanity." Formed in 2003, the WTI brings together over 200 NGOs from across the world as well as a number of prominent intellectuals, such as linguist Noam Chomsky, international law professor Richard Falk, Egyptian sociologist Samir Amin and Indian novelist Arundathi Roy. It is modelled on the 1960s Russel Tribunal, which was established by British philosopher Bertrand Russell to denounce the war in Vietnam. The WTI meeting in Istanbul represented the final session in two years of deliberations during which 20 hearings have been held in more than a dozen countries across the globe. Over a period of three days, a Panel of Advocates comprising 54 expert witnesses presented testimony to "The Jury of Conscience," a 17-person jury drawn from 10 countries and chaired by Arundathi Roy. In addition to testimony on the illegality of the decision to invade Iraq, the jury heard evidence about the impact of the war on the Iraqi population, including 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 and the destruction of the country's cultural heritage. As she announced the jury's verdict to cheers and applause from the participants in the meeting, Roy called for an "immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the coalition forces from Iraq". "Our aim is to have the US and British forces out of Iraq," she said. "The Bush and Blair administrations blatantly ignored the massive opposition to the war expressed by millions of people around the world," read the jury's verdict. "The Anglo- American occupation of Iraq over 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 healthcare delivery system is a mess; the education system has ceased to function; there is massive environmental and ecological devastation; and the cultural and archaeological heritage of the Iraqi people has been desecrated." Perhaps most controversially the WTI jury's verdict extended implicit support to the insurgents in Iraq. It recognised the "right of the Iraqi people to resist the illegal occupation of their country and to develop independent institutions" without any clarification as to whether any of the methods used by the insurgents in Iraq did, or did not, constitute a legitimate means of resistance. The jury's verdict merely read: "the right to resist the occupation is the right to wage a struggle for self- determination, freedom, and independence as derived from the United Nations Charter." The WTI jury harshly condemned what it described as "Major Corporate Media" for "disseminating deliberate falsehoods and failing to report atrocities". It also issued a call for consumers across the world to boycott the goods and services of US and British companies which were benefiting financially from the war. In issuing the jury's verdict, the WTI stressed that the process of trying to bring those responsible for the Iraq war to justice would continue. The charges and evidence presented during the different sessions around the world over the last two years will now be published in book form. The WTI is also committed to supporting any legal initiatives, whether in individual countries or international courts, such as the International Court in The Hague, even though its jurisdiction is still not recognised by the US. However, despite the elation in the conference hall when the jury's verdict was announced, some of the participants expressed concerns that the WTI was making only a symbolic gesture and that more practical measures needed to be taken. Hanin Tarvat, a student at Baghdad University and a member of the nine-person Iraqi delegation attending the meeting, commented: "The statements were very superficial. The session did not produce the concrete decisions we had wanted and hoped for." -------- iran Iran's Nuclear Weapons Ambitions Key International Issue By Andre de Nesnera Washington 30 June 2005 Voice of America http://www.voanews.com/english/Iranian-Nuclear-Weapons-Ambitions-Key-International-Issue.cfm Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program remains a key problem for the international community. But delegates to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference last month in New York, failed to address that issue. The United States and Europe believe Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. But Tehran says its program is aimed at producing fuel for peaceful purposes. In an agreement last year with three European countries - Britain, France and Germany - Iran decided to temporarily suspend its nuclear enrichment program: a technology that could lead to producing nuclear weapons. The United States is not directly involved in the talks, but backs the Europeans, who are continuing their negotiations with Iran. Daryl Kimball heads the Arms Control Association, an independent organization based in Washington, D.C. He says the three European countries, known as the "EU three," hope the discussions with Iran will make the suspension permanent, in exchange for trade deals. "Iran asserts that it has a right, under Article Four of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to pursue peaceful nuclear technologies, including uranium enrichment," Mr. Kimball explained. "The EU three, as well as the United States and many other states, argue that because Iran did not fully disclose its activities for some two decades to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and pursued the construction of secret uranium enrichment facilities, it is not to be trusted - and that as a measure of good faith, it should indefinitely suspend its uranium enrichment activities. And they are in the midst of negotiations and are due to come to some conclusion in about a month and a half." During a meeting at the White House Tuesday, President Bush emphasized to German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder that the U.S. strongly endorses the Europeans' efforts. Following the visit, Mr. Bush told reporters the message is clear. "My message is to the chancellor, that we continue to work with Great Britain, France, and Germany to send a focused, concerted, unified message that says the development of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable and a process which would enable Iran to develop a nuclear weapon is unacceptable," the president said. But newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has vowed to move Mahmoud Ahmadinejad waves to his supporters forward with the nuclear program while continuing negotiations with the Europeans. Many analysts believe the election of Mr. Ahmadinejad will complicate matters. One of those is William Potter, nuclear non-proliferation expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. "I cannot imagine that the election of a very conservative president is going to make Iran adopt a more flexible and accommodating position in those negotiations," he said. Mr. Potter believes the United States must be more actively engaged in the ongoing talks. "There really has to be a package of both incentives and disincentives - carrots and sticks - and I do not think that the package yet has been fully developed," he said. "And I think what the presidential election in Iran means, is that it may be more difficult to put together a package which is agreeable both to the Iranian leadership and the United States. The U.S. has to be very much engaged along with the Europeans. There has to be a kind of 'good cop - bad cop' [routine] - and I think, as some have suggested, it might be desirable for the Europeans to adopt more of a 'bad cop' posture and for the U.S. to adopt more of a 'good cop' posture." The United States tried to bring up Iran's nuclear program during the recent conference in New York reviewing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, known as the NPT. Ambassador Thomas Graham, former U.S. representative to previous NPT review conferences, says that effort went nowhere. "It was a standoff over the U.S. desire to, you might say, indict Iran for failure to observe the safeguard agreements that they entered into," Amb. Graham explained. "And I do not think anyone, or at least most countries would not dispute the fact that Iran was in violation - certainly I would not. But Iran did not want to be singled out and they undoubtedly had some Third World allies there. I think with patient and careful diplomacy a way could have been found around that, but one was not found." Ambassador Graham and other experts believe a concerted effort must be undertaken fairly quickly to find a solution to Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. They say it might require some fundamental changes in policy - such as the United States deciding to normalize political and economic relations with Tehran. -------- japan Chubu Electric Says Melted Waste Caused Smoke at Nuclear Plant Last Updated: June 30, 2005 21:13 EDT (Bloomberg) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000101&sid=aM.nuRsZbY2M July 1 -- Chubu Electric Power Co., Japan's third- biggest power producer, said a canister containing melted low- level nuclear waste was the cause of smoke at its Hamaoka power plant. Smoke billowed from the plant's nuclear waste disposal building from 9:10 p.m. local time yesterday, the Nagoya-based utility said in a statement faxed today. Nobody was injured and there was no fire or radiation leak. Fire fighters resolved the situation at 10:40 p.m. the same day, the company said. The company heats metal and other non-burnable low-level waste to about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,732 degrees Fahrenheit) to melt it down for compact disposal in canisters. One canister fell over when it was being moved to a cooling room, Tokyo-based spokesman Eiichi Miyata said in a telephone interview today. ``The material had been heated to such a high temperature that it's not surprising there was smoke after the container fell over,'' Miyata said. Hamaoka, Chubu Electric's sole nuclear power station, is operating as normal, the company said. The plant, located in Japan's central prefecture of Shizuoka, south of Tokyo, has five reactors with a total generating capacity of 4,997 megawatts. To contact the reporter on this story: Meggan Richard in Tokyo at mrichard3@bloomberg.net. --- Fire at Japan nuclear plant, no radiation leak Thursday June 30, 10:27 PM (Reuters) http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050630/3/238pp.html TOKYO, June 30 - A fire broke out at a Japanese nuclear power plant on Thursday evening but there was no radiation leak and no injuries, the plant operator said. The fire started at a facility where low-level radioactive waste is treated inside drums at a plant in Shizuoka, 150 km (94 miles) west of Tokyo, plant operator Chubu Electric Power Co. Inc. said. Hot waste spilled from a canister and there was smoke but no flames, a Chubu spokesman said. There had been no suspension of nuclear power generators, which were operating as normal, he said. The fire, which broke out at 9:10 p.m. (1210 GMT) at the Hamaoka nuclear power plant in Omaezaki, Shizuoka Prefecture, had almost been extinguished. -------- korea N. Korea Resumes Building Nuclear Reactors - Report By REUTERS June 30, 2005 Filed at 8:55 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-korea-north-reactors.html?pagewanted=print TOKYO (Reuters) - North Korea has restarted work on two nuclear reactors that was suspended under a 1994 landmark deal with the United States, a Japanese newspaper reported on Thursday. Quoting unidentified U.S. government and other sources in Washington, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun said North Korea had resumed building a 50-megawatt reactor in Yongbyon and a 200-megawatt reactor in Thaechon, north of Pyongyang. But an official in Seoul familiar with intelligence on North Korea's nuclear activities said there was no specific proof to conclude work had restarted. North Korea recently told the United States ``indirectly'' it was resuming the building work, the newspaper quoted sources in Washington as saying. Under the 1994 deal, North Korea suspended work on the plutonium-producing, graphite-based reactors in exchange for a multi-billion dollar deal involving energy aid and the construction of two light-water reactors, which are more difficult to use in nuclear arms development. The light-water reactors have never been completed. It also sealed the operation of a five-megawatt reactor in Yongbyon, considered to be the major source of the North's weapons-grade plutonium, under the agreement, known as the Agreed Framework. But that deal unraveled after Washington said in October 2002 the North had said it had a secret uranium enrichment program. Pyongyang subsequently denied saying this. The latest work had been confirmed through spy satellite photographs and other data, the sources were quoted as saying. North Korea's move could be designed to demonstrate to the United States the reclusive communist state could easily accelerate its nuclear weapons program, the newspaper quoted the sources as saying. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The paper said building was expected to take several years. ``At this stage, there is no additional information to substantiate this report, which has been talked about before based on assumptions,'' the South Korean official said, referring to the reported resumption of work on the incomplete reactors. The report came as South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-young visited Washington for talks with U.S. leaders on his meeting earlier in June with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Japan's top government spokesman Hiroyuki Hosoda told a news conference Tokyo had not confirmed the move, adding he was aware North Korea had in the past said it intended to restart the work. North Korea said in February it had nuclear weapons and was boycotting six-party talks on ending its nuclear ambitions. It said in May 8,000 spent fuel rods from the five-megawatt reactor had been removed as part of measures to boost its nuclear arsenal. The North recently has shown signs it may return to the talks, which involve the two Koreas, the United States, China, Russia and Japan. North Korean's Kim told Chung his country was prepared to return to negotiations if certain conditions were met, such as Washington treating Pyongyang as a genuine partner. The Bush administration last week urged North Korea to set a date quickly for resuming six-party nuclear talks amid an intensifying diplomatic push that is expected to include another trip to Asia by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. On Tuesday, Russia's Interfax news agency quoted a North Korean diplomatic source as saying Pyongyang was preparing to return to the table in the second half of July. -------- security Nonproliferation and the G-8 By Jon Wolfsthal Thursday, June 30, 2005, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17146&prog=zgp&proj=znpp Testimony by Jon Wolfsthal before the U.S. House of Representatives International Relations Committee On Thursday, June 30, 2005, Carnegie Deputy Director for Nonproliferation Jon Wolfsthal testified before the U.S. House of Representatives International Relations Committee, Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation on "Nonproliferation and the G-8." Click here to access a full transcript(pdf). http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/109/wol063005.pdf Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is an honor to once again testify before the subcommittee on an issue of such critical importance to our nation’s security. The urgency of the multiple nuclear threats facing all Americans, as well as our friends and allies around the world cannot be understated. Yet despite the grave reality of these threats, these dangers continue to be underappreciated by the public and in many quarters of the U.S. and foreign governments. I commend you for helping to raise the profile of this issue and spur debate on what the United States Government is doing, is not doing, and can do better to protect our great country from this, our top security threat. Mr. Chairman, I have commended the current administration for championing the role ofthe G-8 in the cause of nonproliferation. Building on groundwork laid by its predecessor, the Bush administration helped galvanize international awareness that the affects of a nuclear attack would be felt far beyond the blast zone. A nuclear terrorist strike would have unprecedented and global societal, political and economic implications. Self-interest dictates that the G-8 countries – as the countries with the most economically to lose from such an attack -- take action to prevent such a nightmare from becoming reality. The creation of the G-8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction remains a high water point for efforts by this administration to confront this acute danger and for that it should be recognized. The formation of the Global Partnership, initially known as the Ten Plus Ten Over Ten ($10 billion from the US, $10 billion from other G-8 partners over 10 years) is a true accomplishment and a symbol of America’s ability to harness its economic and political relationships to the broader good, as well as in its own self-interests. Yet despite broad rhetorical support and the pledges of additional financial resources by our G-8 partners, I am sorry to say that efforts by our government and the G-8 collectively are falling short and our urgency is fading fast. Worse, this is not just a flaw within the Global Partnership, but symptomatic of our broader anti-proliferation efforts within the United States. We have not yet learned the lesson that good is just not good enough in the battle against nuclear terrorism. The vast majority of G-8 pledges are just that, pledges. The money and expertise are needed now to ensure that the threats we all face are reduced and eliminated as quickly as possible. A number of factors have delayed the rapid implementation of critical projects. To be sure, one of the top reasons is the lack of effective leadership and management from and with Russia, which must do more to deserve its place in the partnership as more than just a mere recipient. While some progress has been made in helping Russia see the need to take independent action and organize more effectively, much remains to be done. But in the end, we are here to assess our own record and consider what policies the United States might adopt to ensure its own interests and those of our G-8 partners. That record leaves much to be desired. It has been said many times but perhaps said best by Senator Sam Nunn. We are in a race for our lives. It is us versus the terrorists and the terrorists are winning. A quick review of the administration’s own milestones makes clear that despite good words and intentions, we are not giving steps to prevent a nuclear attack against this country the utmost urgency they demand. As examples, let me cite just two key objectives many experts see as absolute requirements to protect this country from a terrorist nuclear attack – securing nuclear materials in Russia and recovering nuclear materials from research facilities around the globe – respectively known as MPC&A and the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. Both of these vital programs have timelines that stretch out far too long. While the Bush administration has recently moved up the MPC&A program timetable and stated its intention to complete nuclear security upgrades in the former Soviet Union by 2008 instead of the 2013 originally envisioned, no one believes that this objectives will be achieved. The political resources are just not there and there are real concerns that this new aggressive target is as much a result of statistical “creativity” as project engineering. Likewise, the GTRI or Global Clean out, designed to keep those materials most likely to end up in the hands of terrorists – those poorly protected in research facilities across the globe - is now slated to be completed in 10 years. WWII was fought and won in just over half that time. My colleagues and I at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace have recommended in our recent policy proposal Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security that the United States undertake and complete the same task in 4 years, with the requisite dedication of resources, including manpower and incentives for other countries to cooperate. And I am sorry to say that when one looks at the pace of cooperation and achievements within the G-8 Global Partnership, the results and sense of urgency track the same as with these other important activities. In some areas, we are moving at the same or even a slower pace that before the 9/11 attacks. Yes, our G-8 partners have committed substantial resources to the challenge, and they now help share the burden. But these pledges have fallen far short of the initial goal of 10 billion additional dollars hoped for. This is to say nothing of the ambition that the $20 billion should be seen as a floor, not a ceiling to the international commitment of resources. As of June 2005, pledges to the G-8 Global Partnership totaled roughly $17 billion. It is good news that thirteen non-G-8 states have committed to making pledges including Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Korea, Sweden, and Switzerland. But only eight have actually made pledges thus far (Australia, Czech Republic, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, and Switzerland). These partners and their pledges are a sign of hard work and good governance and we should not lose sight of this progress. But we need more than commitments -- we need action. Results matter. Even in the best of lights, the G-8 Global Partnership target of $20 billion still falls far short of the $30 billion target recommended by the Department of Energy’s own high level advisory panel, chaired by Ambassador Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler, who’s recent passing we all mourned. I believe that had this report been written after 9/11, we would have seen even greater emphasis placed on the speed with which these resources should have been spent. Those bi-partisan leaders saw an urgency before the terror attack in 2001 that I am afraid has not been recognized by the rest of the Government, even after those strikes. Ladies and gentlemen, analysts such as I often make financial comparisons to prove our point. These are made not to disparage the programs we compare them to, but to force people to consider the relative security gained per dollar spent. It seems to me that if we can spent $10 billion a year on National Missile Defense, designed to protect against a limited threat that even the Joint Chiefs rank relatively low on their threat board, then we can surely spend more than 1 tenth of that amount on a known and defined threat we all must recognize. Likewise, the war in Iraq has already cost well over 20 times in money alone what the US plans to spend in 10 years on the Global Partnership. Just as we must urgently win the war in Iraq, we must urgently win the war against those who would use nuclear materials against our allies and ourselves. Key problems have plagued the implementation of the G-8 beyond financial resources. My colleagues have or will catalogue many of them. But it is important to note that this is not just about money. More money is needed, but it was international coordination through the G-8 that was supposed to catalyze our efforts to prevent proliferation. Yet the coordination efforts have been lacking among the G-8 partners and we have seen a bureaucratically tangled effort in the United States become magnified eightfold. We are not organized for success. It remains difficult to understand why the G-8 leaders have not established single, responsible coordinators within each government with full time responsibilities over these critical efforts. Even those who argue against the creation of a nonproliferation Czar within the US Government should see the value in having a coordinating position that can cut across the multiple government agencies with a hand in the Global Partnership. While early problems with coordination have improved, it is still not surprising for government officials from G-8 countries or prospective contributors to approach non-governmental experts asking to find their counterparts in the United States structure. That 3 years after the partnership was launched that there is no central points of contacts and clear understanding of parallel government programs is a major concern. So in addition to financial concerns, it seems obvious, based on the record to date that we have not invested the organizational and political resources needed to ensure the success of the G-8 effort. More must be done, and it must be done quickly. Mr. Chairman, I have talked about the challenges facing the G-8 Global Partnership. I’d like to add a few words, however, in a larger perspective on the G-8 and the antiproliferation effort. I began my remarks by noting that the G-8 nations have the much to lose from the use of nuclear weapons. Too date, however, the G-8 nations have not used their political clout to address the broader problem of proliferation, including demand for and access to these capabilities. We will hear a lot at the Gleneagles summit about debt relief for Africa, an important issue that demonstrates the type of collective economic and political leadership that must be brought to bear on complex issues. I believe the United States must now look to additional sources of international legitimacy and capabilities on proliferation, including the G-8. As a start, G-8 members should be asked to develop and maintain the highest standards for protecting nuclear materials and controlling sensitive exports. Today’s physical protections standards are woefully inadequate. The G-8 must set an example to have both the unity and the moral authority to address these challenges. This is no different from the issue of debt relief. Thus, G-8 countries should take the lead by fully implementing the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1540 and should adopt and implement new, high standards of protecting nuclear materials. Another key step, as my colleagues from the Nuclear Threat Initiative have championed, would be for the G-8 countries to all immediately agree to phase out the use of weapons-uranium in research facilities. Today, at least 5 of the 8 members states, including the United States run peaceful research facilities with the very same materials needed to make nuclear weapons and this despite long-standing U.S. and international efforts to end the civilian use of this dangerous material. Moreover, I believe the United States should be more creative and effective at using the opportunity presented by the G-8 on nonproliferation. One of the underlying issues that holds back greater cooperation between the United States and other close allies is that we do not share the same perception of the threats and risks posed by the possible spread and use of these weapons and materials. Berlin sees a different threat than Washington does, just as Tokyo faces a different threat than London. In addition to the urgent need for the United States to develop joint proliferation risk assessments with our close allies in Europe and East Asia, I believe it is time for the United States to pursue a joint economic risk assessment through the G-8. Helping the world’s leading market economies agree on and understand the dramatic economic costs of a nuclear attack would help improve the outlook for commitments from these states to address these dangers. The need for a common U.S. –European proliferation risk assessment is long overdue. I would imagine that my colleague, Michele Flournoy who has worked for several years to help improve European understanding of the proliferation risks could readily attest to this basic observation. While no replacement for the desperately needed common threat assessment, the development of this economic risk assessment could have great value, reinvigorate cooperative nonproliferation efforts and should be actively considered. I am not an economist, but I am confident that such an assessment would show the clear cost/benefit value in investing more resources now to prevent the threats we are discussing from becoming realities. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, if the leading economic powers on earth cannot demonstrate the commitment and urgency the threat of nuclear terrorism and proliferation demand, then we have little hope of preventing those who seek to use nuclear capabilities against us from succeeding. But in making this choice, we have to remember that there are no good responses once a nuclear weapon or enough nuclear material to produce one goes missing. Prevention is all we have, and we must do better than we are today. ---- All the Insecurity Money Can Buy By Veronique de Rugy Published 06/30/2005 Tech Central Station http://www.techcentralstation.com/063005D.html More than 80 nonproliferation and national security experts polled for a congressional study estimate that in the next decade the risk of an attack using some sort of nuclear device is as high as 70%. The odds are also high that terrorists will bring the nuclear devices into the United States through a port -- and the government's current efforts at port security only increase them. The federal government spends Homeland Security money in peculiar ways - for city buses, ferry boats and national therapeutic programs to help kids deal with the idea of death. But it also has spent a fair bit of money on port security. Money doesn't always equal results, though. A recent review of the Port Security Grant Program conducted by the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General seriously questioned the merits of "several hundred projects" related to port security. In addition to these $563 million in grants, DHS has spent $300 million to install 470 radiation portal monitors (RPM) -- a technology meant to detect the so-called dirty bombs -- at U.S. points of entry to combat nuclear smuggling. That comes on top of another $500 million appropriated by Congress for that effort to the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense and the State Department. But these radiation portal monitors probably won't keep you that much safer. A panel of nuclear security experts told members of the House Homeland Security Committee that these monitors can't reliably detect the crucial element in a nuclear bomb, highly enriched uranium. According to these experts, terrorists could easily shield the uranium and thus avoid detection by such passive radiation monitors. That's not all. Even if the system could detect every type of nuclear material, the terrorists also would have to be kind enough to bring the nuclear devices through the radiation monitors. And, according to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the 22 RPMs used to screen 45% of containers emit about 150 false alarms a day. That means once ports start screening 100% of cargo more than 300 false alarms a day will go off. Based on an extremely low estimate of 10 minutes per follow-up inspections -- and assuming that RPM operations are fully staffed --the cost of these false alarms would be at least 50 hours per day. Since, 95% of international goods that come into the country come in through America's 361 ports; the economic impact of slowing down shipping in and out could prove immense. A Government Accountability Office representative also testified that "the common problem faced by the U.S. programs to combat nuclear smuggling is the lack of effective planning and coordination among responsible agencies." No government-wide plan guides U.S. efforts, and many programs are duplicative. Some reports also point at border agents improperly handling radiation detectors because they lack proper training. Have we really spent $800 million for nothing? Possibly. According to Charles Masey, a security expert at Sandia, "Our best bet [to prevent a nuclear bomb from going through our ports] is to dedicate all our resources toward the port of origin rather than here." Once the weapon is on its way, there is very small chance of stopping it before it is too late. If the goal is really to stop a nuclear disaster, the federal government should persuade officials abroad to tighten security at the foreign ports that feed shipments into U.S. ports. It could, for example, help fund systems to bolster foreign countries' ability to detect nuclear material in their ports. An estimate shows that deploying a screening system at every port in the world would cost roughly $1.5 billion. That, for once, might be a cost effective security measure. Of course, it should be funded by cutting low priority programs in place now rather than adding it on top of them. Better yet, it might not be necessary to invest equally in every port. For instance, 70 percent of the cargo that enters the Los Angeles and Long Beach port comes from Hong Kong and Singapore. So Port officials there should receive the greatest focus. Ultimately, the most cost-effective measure is to keep close tabs on the foreign sources of uranium in places such as the Soviet Union. Experts claim that it is easier to monitor a lump of uranium at a known location than it is to detect uranium smuggling. Unfortunately, U.S. port officials face resistance from government officials in their endeavor to use cost-effective security measures rather than politically motivated ones. Until things change, the US will spend huge amount on homeland security, and America will yet remain vulnerable to catastrophic attacks. If you are a producer or reporter who is interested in receiving more information about this article or the author, please email your request to interview@techcentralstation.com. -------- space SPACE WEAPONS ARE REALLY A TERRIBLE IDEA JUNE 29, 2005 Minute Man Media By Karl Grossman http://www.cjonline.com/stories/070105/opi_grossman.shtml The White House is expected in coming weeks to declare space a new arena of war. It is anticipated that the Bush administration will give the go-ahead to long-developing strategy to -- as U.S. military plans explicitly state -- "control" the "ultimate high ground" of space and from it "dominate" the planet below. Indeed, after expending billions of dollars in preparation -- especially for the Star Wars program of the Reagan era -- the United States has the technology to move into space with weapons. But that the United States will end up as the only nation up there is a huge miscalculation. A tragic mistake is in the making that will lead to an arms race in space and no nation having any advantage. The United States can be first to deploy weapons in space, but then, in response, China and Russia -- and who knows what other nation next will be up there, too. Vast amounts of financial resources will have to be expended by the citizens of all these countries -- money desperately needed for medical care, education, the environment and all the other great wants on Earth. And, it will divert resources from the war on terrorism. Just a few decades ago, the United States joined with the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union to prevent the weaponization of space. The three nations put together a visionary document: the Outer Space Treaty enacted in 1967 and now ratified by most of the nations on Earth. "Inspired by the great prospects opening up before mankind" as a result of the "entry into outer space, recognizing the common interest of all mankind in the progress of the exploration and use of space for peaceful purposes," it prohibits the placement of "nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction" in space. In recent years, our neighbor, Canada, has led -- along with Russia and China -- efforts to broaden the treaty and ban all weapons in space. The United States has opposed this and would now break the Outer Space Treaty by deploying weapons of mass destruction. One U.S. program, nicknamed "Rods From God," would hurl cylinders of tungsten, titanium or uranium at targets on Earth each striking with the force of a "small" nuclear weapon. That's a weapon of mass destruction. And to other nations responding and meeting us in kind in space, a high U.S. diplomat told me as he prepared to vote at the United Nations against a resolution barring all space weapons, U.S. military analyses have determined China is "30 years behind" in competing with the U.S. militarily in space, and Russia "doesn't have the money." I recounted travels in China, observing its technological strength, noted its space prowess, and pointed to the enormous space capabilities of Russia. A big error is being made, I said. He disagreed. In recent weeks, there have been declarations that China and Russia would counter with force if the United States moves to weaponize space. If "we find ourselves in a situation where we need to react, of course we will do it," said a Russian official. Moreover, consider if space is armed and there is a shooting war with laser weapons and hypervelocity guns and particle beams (a preferred energy source: on-board nuclear power) and other weapons exchanging fire. There would be so much debris left orbiting at high speed above the planet that humanity would be precluded for millennia from again getting up and out and exploring space. As Edgar Mitchell, a former astronaut who walked on the moon, has said: "Getting out to deep space would be like swimming in a piranha-full river or running through a hail of bullets." Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, says the proposed new Bush National Space Policy Directive must be "met with a resounding chorus that says we will not allow this plan for space warfare to go forward." People must demand warfare not be allowed to extend to the heavens. Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, is author of "Weapons In Space" (Seven Stories Press) and host of the television documentary "Star Wars Returns" (EnviroVideo). -------- treaties Ukraine, China sign nuclear power cooperation treaty 30.06.2005, 11.42 (Itar-Tass) http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=2186805&PageNum=0 KIEV, June 30 - Ukraine and China signed on Thursday a treaty on nuclear power cooperation. The document is aimed “to contribute to bilateral interaction in peaceful uses of nuclear power,” a source at the Ukrainian State Committee for Nuclear Regulation said. The treaty was signed within the framework of Deputy Minister of the Chinese State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) Wang Yuqing’s visit to Ukraine. The delegation is expected to visit the Chernobyl nuclear power plant later in the day. In February, Ukraine and China announced their intention to work out a five-year joint plan of actions on research and the peaceful use of outer space. -------- u.s. nuc weapons Coming to grips with doomsday Tom Plate / Syndicated columnist Seattle Times, Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 12:00 AM http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2002352461&zsection_id=268883724&slug=plate30&date=20050630 LOS ANGELES — The policy of the United States, at the moment the world's only superpower, lacks an overall sense of urgency about the spread and possible use of nuclear weapons. In all probability, this lapse will someday lead to immense tragedy. The world has been sitting on a ticking time-bomb for six decades. It is an inexplicable miracle rather than superior national-security policy or international-control management that a nuclear weapon hasn't exploded on one or more population centers. Don't, of course, run this superficial observation by the Japanese, who still have the painful memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is not for nothing that this technologically brilliant but overpopulated nation remains, despite recent militant uptick emotions, on the whole anti-nuclear and pacifist. But Japan someday will go nuclear if North Korea establishes itself as a palpable nuke power, as with Pakistan and India, a pair of competing nuclear powers. Russia still has piles of nukes; the British and the French have not relinquished their stockpiles; Israel denies — unconvincingly to many — that it has the bomb; Iran denies — equally unconvincingly to many — any intention of developing a nuclear capability. And so it goes. The U.S. takes the prize, though. It maintains (on 24-hour alert, hair-trigger status, no less) more than 10 times (at least) as many nuclear warheads as there are nations in the world. This absurd and risky overreadiness has drawn new fire here from warriors old and new. The late President Ronald Reagan, though anything but a dove while in office, appears to have been a passionate nuclear abolitionist both behind the scenes and deep in his heart, in the view of author and academic Paul Lettow. His "Ronald Reagan and His Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons" has been raising major eyebrows in circles liberal as well as conservative and has been helping generate a sense of national unease about the defects of our non-proliferation policy and the lack of a serious nuclear-reduction/disarmament policy. The newly aroused anti-nuclear campaign in America has been joined with octogenarian vehemence by Robert McNamara, now 89 no less. The former defense secretary in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, has in newspaper interviews and op-ed essays been a one-man band warning of the inherent (or, as he puts it, "insane") dangers of so many ready-to-blow nukes in so many countries. His regrets about the Vietnam War and his unmistakable intellect have added a touch of establishment credibility to the abolitionist position. This has enhanced the credibility of enduring firebrands like Helen Caldicott, the near-legendary Australian physician who has all but dedicated her life to the anti-nuclear campaign. Take a look, for illustration, at the astoundingly energetic Web site of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org), with whom Caldicott and many others are allied. There's a feeling in the air that the anti-nuclear movement is gaining traction. The war in Iraq is obviously going badly and the hawks and neo-cons in Washington, if not exactly in retreat, seem not to be pounding their chests with such prideful arrogance these days. The recent endless United Nations summit-retreat on advancing the venerable Non-Proliferation Treaty was a colossal and embarrassing failure. The United States — which has brutally tabled the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and even raised the probability of funding further nuclear-weapons research — refuses to conform to the NPT's call for drawing down existing nuclear arsenals. As Alyn Ware of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy has put it, "... It is impossible to prevent nuclear proliferation while the nuclear-weapons states insist on maintaining large stockpiles of weapons themselves. It's like a parent telling a child to not smoke while smoking a pack of cigarettes in their face. It's not going to work. ... " The smoking gun is North Korea. We have invaded a country that possessed no weapons of mass destruction at the cost of more than 1,700 U.S. lives, unknown U.S. treasure and countless Iraqi lives, while fumbling big-time as Pyongyang played hardball on the nuclear issue. We have obviously got our national security-policy priorities upside down. Thus we desperately need those fearless non-governmental organizations like the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation — not to mention old warriors like McNamara and Caldicott — to continue to campaign tirelessly if we are not to realize the kind of nuclear calamity that, present trends unchecked, seems increasingly predictable. UCLA professor Tom Plate, a member of the Pacific Council on International Policy, is founder and director of UCLA's Media Center. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- alabama Merger to help Alabama nuclear plant's response time Peggy Ussery / aussery@dothaneagle.com June 30, 2005 Dothan Eagle http://www.dothaneagle.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=DEA/MGArticle/DEA_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031783580701&path=!frontpage Southern Nuclear's merging of three emergency operations facilities - including one located at Farley Nuclear Plant - will not hinder response to emergency events at their nuclear power plants, a company spokesman said Wednesday. In fact, with advances in electronic communications the merger should improve the company's response, said Steve Higginbottom, a spokesman for Southern Nuclear in Birmingham. The merger involves emergency operations facilities at Farley Nuclear Plant in Columbia, Hatch Nuclear Plant in Vidalia, Ga., and Vogtle Electric Generating Plant near Waynesboro, Ga. Operations for those three centers will now be handled at Southern Nuclear's corporate office in Birmingham. "We feel it further strengthens the company's emergency response capability, and that enhances public safety," Higginbottom said. "We have a highly-trained and skilled staff here at the corporate office that can respond." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the merger in May. Houston County Emergency Management Agency Director Shelby Womack said his office has been involved with drills held by Southern Nuclear to test the new emergency operations facility. Womack said he saw no problems or delays in how the central facility operated. Getting information during an event, he said, should go a lot smoother. "If anything, I believe it will be faster," Womack said. "All the key people are together, and they don't have to coordinate decisions over a long distance or over a telephone or anything else. It is a much better situation than ever before, And I think it will help us do our job better." The emergency operations facility is just one of Southern Nuclear's steps in responding to an event at a nuclear power plant. If an event occurs, a technical support center located at each plant jumps into action to ensure the reactor is operating safely. Information on the event is then gathered in the emergency operations facility, which in turn disseminates the information to local, state and federal officials as well as to public information staff in order to keep the public informed. A third center - called the joint information center - is a "near-site" facility where the information is provided to the public and media. While the emergency operations facilities once located at the three nuclear plants will now operate under one roof, each power plant will maintain a technical support center and an off-site joint information center, Higginbottom said. Southern Nuclear also provides public information and technical staff for local emergency management offices during an event. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission even keeps resident inspectors at each nuclear power plant. "Our chief goal, every one of us, is to protect health and public safety," Higginbottom said. "And everything that is done in the event is aimed at protecting health and public safety in the community surrounding the event." -------- new jersey No Cleanup for Ground Water at New Jersey Radium Sites MONTCLAIR, New Jersey, June 30, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005/2005-06-30-09.asp#anchor6 After assessing the risk of doing nothing to clean up ground water at the Montclair/West Orange and Glen Ridge Radium Sites in Essex County, New Jersey, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that the ground water does not require any cleanup. The conclusions of the study and assessment mean that cleanup work is done at the sites. The agency will take public comment and hold a public meeting and information sessions on this proposed decision. "With the cleanup complete, EPA has achieved its goal of protecting the people and the environment in the affected communities," said Acting EPA Regional Administrator Kathleen Callahan. "I encourage the public to continue its active involvement in the site and comment on our proposal." The Montclair/West Orange and Glen Ridge Radium sites were contaminated with radioactive waste materials suspected to have come from radium processing companies located nearby during the early 1900s. Some of the radium-contaminated soil was used as fill or was mixed with cement for sidewalks and foundations. In 1983, the state of New Jersey discovered homes with high levels of radon gas from the decay of radium in the soil, as well as high levels of indoor and outdoor gamma radiation. In response, EPA installed radon ventilation systems and gamma radiation shielding in affected homes. The sites were listed on the National Priorities List of the nation's most hazardous waste sites in February 1985. After performing a scientific study of the nature and extent of the contamination, EPA excavated and disposed of all radium-contaminated soil and restored the affected properties. EPA completed excavation activities in December 2004, removing and disposing of about 220,000 cubic yards of radioactive soil and debris and filling in the excavated areas with clean soil. At the time EPA decided how to clean up the contaminated soil, the agency also recognized the need to examine potential impacts from the radiological contamination to ground water. EPA performed a study, which shows the ground water meets drinking water standards for radiological contaminants and that radon levels in the ground water are consistent with regional background levels. To discuss these findings and the proposal not to do further cleanup, the EPA will hold public information sessions on July 12 and July 13, 2005 from 10:00 am to 7:00 pm at the EPA trailer compound at 1 Oak Street, Montclair, New Jersey. -------- new york Brookhaven Scientists Develop Method to Remove Uranium from Contaminated Steel Surfaces June 30, 2005 BNL Media & Communications Office http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=05-69 Upton, NY – Scientists from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory, Center for Environmental and Molecular Sciences, and Stony Brook University (SBU) have developed a simple, safe method of removing uranium from contaminated metallic surfaces using citric acid formulations so that the materials can be recycled or disposed of as low-level radioactive or nonradioactive waste. The research is published in the July 1, 2005 issue of Environmental Science and Technology. Decontamination of radionuclides from metallic and other surfaces contaminated by radiological incidents is a major environmental challenge. Brookhaven scientist A.J. Francis, assisted at the Lab by Cleveland Dodge and by Gary Halada at SBU, led the effort in developing an innovative and improved process for decontaminating metal surfaces and other materials. The research team developed an environmentally friendly green-chemistry process that uses all naturally occurring materials – citric acid, common soil bacteria, and sunlight. Present methods of removing uranium from contaminated metal surfaces include sand blasting, chemical extraction, and electro-chemical dissolution. These methods generate secondary waste streams, creating additional disposal problems. Left to right, scientists A.J. Francis, BNL, Gary Halada, SBU, and Cleveland Dodge, BNL, discuss their uranium decontamination research conducted at BNLs National Synchrotron Light Source. (Click image to download hi-res version.) “In the event of a radiological incident, such as a ‘dirty bomb,’ this technology can be used to clean up contaminated materials,” Francis said. “It will also treat the secondary waste generated from the treatment process, resulting in waste minimization. It is a comprehensive process.” Using the National Synchrotron Light Source, a source of intense x-rays, ultraviolet and infrared light at Brookhaven Lab, the researchers systematically examined the contaminated materials at the molecular scale and the association of uranium before and after treatment with citric acid formulations. The efficiency of uranium removal ranged from 68 percent to 94 percent, depending on the age and extent of corrosion. Wastewater generated from the decontamination process was subjected to biodegradation followed by photodegradation, which minimized the generation of secondary waste and allowed the uranium to be recovered. This process, which has been patented, can also be used to remove toxic metals and radionuclides from contaminated soils, wastes, and incinerator ash. The research was funded by the Environmental Management Science Program of the Environmental Remediation Sciences Division, Office of Biological and Environmental Research of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science. DOE’s Environmental Management Science Program supports basic research to clean up DOE legacy sites and the technologies that have emerged from the program can also be used in response to radiological incidents. ---- 'Dirty Dozen' polluters picked by environment coalition By MICHAEL RISINIT mrisinit@thejournalnews.com THE NY JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: June 30, 2005) http://www.nyjournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050630/NEWS02/506300308/1020/NEWS04 As if the Indian Point nuclear power plants didn't have enough self-esteem issues, they garnered a new distinction yesterday. The Buchanan facility made a list of the state's 12 worst polluters — an announcement a spokesman for the plant's owner waved off as a media stunt. Nonetheless, one of the list's organizers said the announcement was an effort to promote environmental advocacy, even if the immediate region already was relatively steeped in the issues. "This helps to really educate the public," said Jason Babbie, an analyst with the New York Public Interest Research Group. "In some other areas, I think this helps out quite a bit." Standing next to the Hudson River in the city's Riverfront Green Park, Babbie released the state's "Dirty Dozen" polluters. Along with Indian Point, which was downriver shrouded in haze, the second annual batch of awards included the village of Tuckahoe for perceived environmental faux pas. Produced by the Citizens' Environmental Coalition, the list is meant to draw attention to the worst environmental health problems in the state and is drawn from nominations by local groups. "The goal is to get awareness of these issues on a state level. The local communities know what's going on there. This is so everybody in the state knows what's going on," said Christian Werwaiss, of the Citizens' Environmental Coalition. Babbie nominated Indian Point, which is owned by Entergy Nuclear Northeast. He cited the nuclear plants, saying they released liquid, gaseous and solid radioactive waste into the environment. Jim Steets, an Entergy spokesman, dismissed Babbie's contentions. "Indian Point has had virtually no environmental impact on the river or the air," Steets said. "This award, this NYPIRG P.R. event, has more to do with their distaste for nuclear power than it does for their support for the environment." Tuckahoe was recognized for the contamination threat posed by a half-mile-long strip of Marbledale Avenue, which features auto repair shops, other industrial sites and a former landfill. Tamara O'Bradovich of Active Citizens of Tuckahoe nominated the area. "We have a number of issues here with the environment in Tuckahoe," she said. "There's a lot of people with health problems in that area." Tony Sayegh, Tuckahoe's deputy mayor, called the awards "balderdash." "We have a significant amount of documentation that disproved most of their claims," he said. "Apparently, they don't do any of their own investigating." Back in Peekskill, Babbie said Indian Point could only lessen its environmental effects by revamping its cooling system to protect aquatic life in the river. Short of closing down, he said, it can never not be one of the Dirty Dozen. "By its existence, it's going to stay on the list," Babbie said. The list The following were given "Dirty Dozen" awards by the Citizens' Environmental Coalition. • Eastman Kodak, Rochester. • Lafarge Cement Plant's tire burning, south of Albany. • EPA's Region 2 Long Island Sound Cleanup, for a proposal to dump dredge material in the Sound. • New York Organic Fertilizer Co., the Bronx. • Indian Point, Buchanan. • General Electric for its Hudson River PCBs and Dewey Loeffel Landfill in RensselaerCounty. • Chemical Waste Management, Niagara County. • Radiac Inc., a hazardous waste storage plant, Brooklyn. • ANSWERS Consortium, proposed landfill, near Albany. • State Department of Transportation. • Onondaga Creek's proposed Midland Sewage Plant expansion, near Syracuse. • Village of Tuckahoe. For more information on the Citizens' Environmental Coalition, visit http://cectoxic.home.igc.org. ---- Entergy to work with county on Indian Point sirens By MICHAEL RISINIT mrisinit@thejournalnews.com THE NY JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: June 30, 2005) http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050630/NEWS02/506300364/1018/NEWS02 The company that operates the Indian Point nuclear power plants would be willing to work with Westchester County on determining how well its emergency-notification sirens are working, a spokesman said yesterday. Entergy Nuclear Northeast yesterday tested the 156 sirens in the four counties surrounding the nuclear plants in Buchanan. The sirens are meant to rotate several times, alerting residents in all directions to turn on radios and televisions for more information in the event of an emergency at the plant. All except one worked, Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said. Westchester County officials, however, said six of the 79 sirens in the county failed to rotate. Steets said the sirens did rotate. He said software used to monitor the siren tests allows technicians to determine if a reported failure is an actual breakdown or a "false negative." It's a capability of Entergy, he said, but one of which the county may not be aware. In an actual emergency, police would be sent to notify residents in an area with failing sirens. "We are looking forward to meeting with the county to modify the software, improving their ability to determine the functioning of the sirens and eliminating the need for route alerting," Steets said. Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano has long criticized the siren system and unsuccessfully advocated for backup generators for the sirens. Sending police officers out because of failing sirens would take them away from other duties during an emergency, said his chief adviser, Susan Tolchin. "We've had this issue for a while," Tolchin said. "The bottom line is, if we get a report that says they didn't rotate, we have to do route alerting." -------- wyoming Jackson, Wyoming, group contests plutonium plans By The Associated Press June 30, 2005 http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2005/06/30/news/wyoming/37c534d5140dddd38725702f00715735.prt JACKSON, Wyo. (AP) -- A nuclear watchdog group is questioning the federal government's plans to consolidate plutonium-238 production at a laboratory in eastern Idaho. Members of Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free charged Tuesday that the U.S. Department of Energy has stacked the deck in favor of choosing the Idaho National Laboratory without seriously considering other options. In addition, they noted the lab's reactor is 40 years old and sits in an earthquake-prone region. The lab near Idaho Falls is about 100 miles west and upwind of Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks in northwest Wyoming. "They've got their bull's-eye right on INL," KYNF president Tom Patricelli said after meeting Tuesday with energy officials. Tim Frazier, head of the radioisotope power systems for DOE, said the Idaho lab is the only one with an operational reactor that can generate the amount of plutonium-238 the agency wants each year. DOE has scheduled a formal public hearing on the plan in Jackson at 7 p.m. on July 21. The Energy Department is moving to resume production of plutonium-238 as an energy source for spacecraft and some national security activities because existing supplies will be virtually gone in five years. The department said a decision on production of plutonium-238, reaffirmed last year, "will not be revisited" and that production activities should be consolidated at the government's Idaho National Laboratory to increase security. A final decision on consolidation is expected later this year by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, department spokesman Mike Waldron said. But Waldron reiterated that the decision to resume production of plutomiun-238 was made years ago and reaffirmed last year because it has become clear current stocks of the unique isotope will be depleted shortly after 2010. Plutonium-238 is not used for nuclear weapons, but its steady, virtually infinite release of heat during decay makes the isotope valuable as a heat source to produce electricity in spacecraft and for some satellites that are unable to rely on the sun as an energy source. It is many times more radioactive than weapons-grade plutonium-239, however, and ingesting a speck can be fatal. The United States stopped producing plutonium-238 when it shut the last weapons reactor at the Savannah River complex in South Carolina in the mid-1990s. Instead it has relied on existing stockpiles and a supply provided by Russia that is limited to use by NASA in the space program. Currently the government has about 87 pounds of plutonium-238 but expects all but 14 pounds to be used up by 2010 including about 55 pounds for national security related programs. "These power systems have been used for the past 30 years, and we expect that their need will continue," Waldron told The Associated Press. "Production of plutonium-238 is critical if the United States is to continue its leadership in areas of space exploration and provide for certain classified security operations. ..." A draft environmental analysis concludes that consolidation of the program at the Idaho research lab would not cause additional health concerns from radiation releases and have minimal impact on the environment. It also would end the need to transport plutonium-238 over highways. "The EIS clearly shows the environmental impact ... would be far less than resuming production at three sites around the country," said Waldron. Under the plan, activities that otherwise would be at the Oak Ridge facility in Tennessee and the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico would be shifted to the Idaho site. The new complex, if approved, would be expected to be finished by 2009 and cost as much as $300 million. Plans call for making 11 pounds of plutonium-238 a year over 35 years. In a series of hearings last year on the plan, dozens of Idaho residents opposed the consolidation for fear it would increase cancer deaths, threaten the nearby Yellowstone ecosystem and make the region a potential terrorist target. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Fuel Cell Cars Face Bumpy Road Despite $60 Oil Story by Michael Shields, European Auto Correspondent REUTERS GERMANY: June 30, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/31476/story.htm FRANKFURT - Astronomical costs for delivering hydrogen-powered cars and the network to run them mean clean vehicles are years away from competing against today's polluting rivals, even if oil prices stay at record highs. Proponents of the technology still insist that 5 million to 10 million cars running on hydrogen-fed fuel cells and emitting only water vapour could be on the road within 15 years, with the number ballooning to 350 million by 2050. But the dream will only come true if the companies driving the change can make fuel cells better and cheaper, while securing the billions of dollars needed to finance comprehensive hydrogen infrastructure at a time of stretched public coffers. "I am very, very confident that that kind of technology will come and that we will have the chance to drive with that kind of technology and fuel, but it needs a little bit more time," said Herbert Kohler, DaimlerChrysler's head of body and powertrain research and the group's chief environmental officer. The German-American carmaker has over 100 demonstration fuel-cell cars, vans and buses on the road around the world. "We will expect to have a (commercial) start-up in 2012, 2015," Kohler said in a telephone interview. "We would be glad to have 100,000 (fuel cell) cars in 2015." The question is whether such cars can compete on cost and quality against standard gasoline- or diesel-powered cars, even if oil prices remain around their record $60 a barrel now. BETTER AND CHEAPER Lars Peter Thiesen, head of hydrogen fuel cell deployment strategy at General Motors in Germany, said a decade of serious work by pioneers has now shown fuel cell cars work in a variety of climates and under real-world conditions. But efforts to boost performance by adding more platinum to fuel cells, for instance, will only increase already high costs that experts say must fall by at least a factor of 10. "The decisive point is that these two goals -- durability and costs -- have to be met at the same time," Thiesen said. GM aims by 2010 to have fuel cell cars run for 5,500 hours -- the equivalent of driving 160,000 to 240,000 km (100,000 miles to 150,000) -- and cost $50 per kilowatt of power versus $30-$70 now for conventional combustion engines, Thiesen said. As an abundant, clean energy source, hydrogen is natural choice for a world facing a limited supply of increasingly expensive fossil fuels. But customers won't buy cars that are more expensive and less convenient than what they have now, as the flop of electric cars has shown. Many experts see a start-up phase at which some sort of subsidy, like cheap public loans for infrastructure or freeing hydrogen fuel or cars from taxes at first, will be needed to encourage suppliers to swallow early losses. HOW MUCH? Estimates for the cost of setting up a hydrogen-fuel production and distribution network vary wildly. German industrial gases group Linde AG sponsored one study that found it would cost just 3.5 billion euros ($4.24 billion) over 15 years to build 2,800 hydrogen filling stations across Europe in urban areas and along motorways. The study aimed to explode the idea that hydrogen infrastructure was unaffordable, spokesman Stefan Merz said. The main challenge now is one of organisation, he said. Linde plans to build its own fuel stations along a ring of German autobahns linking Berlin, Leipzig, Munich, Stuttgart and Cologne, forming a giant test track for fuel cell cars. Jeremy Bentham, chief executive of Shell Hydrogen, estimated it would cost around $20 billion to supply hydrogen to an area the size of Europe or the United States. But he said industry could foot most of the bill. "Whilst some form of governmental encouragements and incentives are needed to get the ball rolling in the infrastructure area, we would treat this in the same way as we would treat any commercial business," he said. "We see the opportunity for this to be sufficiently attractive for us as a commercial business to invest in it." Energy companies already produce some 50 million tonnes of hydrogen each year around the world for industrial customers who use it for making clean fuels or fertiliser, he said, so the challenge is channelling this to retail outlets. Adding production sites could lower distribution costs so that hydrogen would eventually cost some $2 or $3 per kg versus $15 now for small batches delivered to a customer's door. "...The challenge to the fuelling is not going to be the determining step going forward," Bentham said. "The challenge is going to be the mass production of fuel cell vehicles." DaimlerChrysler's Kohler disagreed. Energy companies have a long way to go to make hydrogen competitive against conventional fuels and to improve the purity of hydrogen, he said. -------- ACTIVISTS Sakhalin Indigenous People Blockade Oil Development YUZHNO-SAKHALINSK, Russia, June 30, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005/2005-06-30-02.asp Sakhalin's indigenous people have blocked roads leading to oil and gas facility projects for two days to support their demands for an assessment of how the projects are affecting them and compensation for damages. The protests began in Nysh, where a coastal oil and gas processing complex is being constructed, said the Regional Ethnic Groups Council. The Green Wave protest, permitted by the local administration, blocked roads from 9 am until 9 pm Tuesday and Wednesday. About 150 Nivkhs, Uiltas and Evenks are involved in the protest against Shell’s Sakhalin II project, which was timed to coincide with the Royal Dutch Shell annual general meeting in London. The same groups demonstrated in January against Sakhalin Energy, Shell-led consortium that includes Mitsui and Mitsubishi, and ExxonMobil oil and gas development on Sakhalin island. They have gathered an international group of supporters who have sent thousands of letters to these companies from all over the world. But, they say, "Shell still will not budge in response to the demands of Sakhalin’s indigenous peoples." Green Wave said today, "The companies still have not agreed to the indigenous peoples’ demand for an independent cultural impact assessment and a compensation fund. They are still polluting Sakhalin’s waters and destroying key salmon and fisheries habitat. This massive industrial project continues to drastically disrupt life on the island." The indigenous people also complain that Credit Suisse First Boston is serving as financial advisor to this project, even though the project violates the Equator Principles on environmental responsibility, to which the bank is a signatory. The protest actions are being organized in part by the Russian Association of Indigenous Minority Peoples of the North, a national organization that represents over 30 indigenous groups across Russia. It is also supported by Russia’s Green Party and the Liberal Democratic Party, as well as by Pacific Environment, Sakhalin Environment Watch, Rainforest Action Network, Global Response, Friends of the Earth, CEE Bankwatch, and others. Greenpeace activists picketed Credit Suisse's downtown Moscow offices Monday over the bank's involvement in financing for Sakhalin oil and gas development. The indigenous peoples are protesting construction of two new oil and gas platforms in the north of Sakhalin; the construction of two 800 kilometer (500 mile) oil and gas pipelines running through the whole island; the construction of a liquid natural gas (LNG) production plant; and the construction of an oil and LNG terminal in Aniva Bay. The Regional Ethnic Groups Council is demanding an independent ethnologic examination to determine the level of negative impact from the new projects and outline a set of measures to minimize it. The Council says that oil producers should finance the examination and ethnic groups should be permitted to choose experts. Sakhalin Energy Investment Company says it does not support the protest action because "we believe there are more constructive ways to enhance co-operation between the company and indigenous people." The company points to a three-party agreement with the Sakhalin Oblast Administration, members of the Indigenous Peoples of Sakhalin (IP) and other oil and gas companies signed on January 18, 2005. Parties to the agreement supported and funded an IP Special Congress, at which a Regional Council of Authorised IP Members was appointed as the legitimate body representing interests of the whole Sakhalin IP community. Sakhalin Energy says it is currently developing a long-term (5-10-15 years) Indigenous Peoples Development Plan. "As we design this program we seek to adopt and use recognized international experience and consider recommendations of internationally acknowledged organizations. IP Council members and representatives of the Sakhalin Oblast Duma and Administration are also involved in the Plan development," the company said today. In May the company announced initiation of the 2005 IP Program in the amount of US$110,000. In addition, the company says it "reviewed" drafts of two documents - "Regulation on Conduct of Independent Ethnological Expert Review" and "Charter of the Regional Community Foundation Ethno-union Sakhalin Indigenous Peoples Development Foundation” - submitted by the IP Council in April 2005. But the company rejected them because it "found that neither of the documents appears to comply with international principles." Sakhalin Energy says it "respects the IP members’ wish to be heard." But, the company says, "We believe that the protest action neither contributes to strengthening of the dialogue and cooperation with the IP, nor promotes implementation of the IP support program." Sakhalin Environment Watch and other nongovernmental organizations supporting the indigenous peoples' protest have published a list of minimum standards for the oil development: * Pipelines for the Sakhalin-II projects must be built with all necessary safety measures to protect from seismic activity and to guarantee accident free operation without ruptures in the event of a 9.0 Richter scale earthquake. To ensure this, pipelines must be built above ground on special vertical support systems to guarantee adequate flexibility without ruptures during earth movements. * Pipeline crossings across all fish spawning rivers and streams on Sakhalin Island must be made with a bridge over the river, on specially designed suspension systems, to avoid damage to the streambeds and water channels. * The new proposed platform for the Piltun-Astokhskoye field for Sakhalin-II Phase 2 must be moved at least 12 nautical miles from shore in order to ensure that the platform does not harm gray whale habitat. Shell should change the route of its proposed four pipelines from Molikpak to shore further to the South - at least 12 nautical miles from gray whale feeding habitat - to fully avoid any disturbance to critical gray whale habitat. * Sakhalin Energy must fully reject its plans to discharge production and sewage wastes into Aniva Bay in southern Sakhalin. All the wastes from the proposed LNG plant, LNG offloading terminal, and oil offloading terminal in the area of the village Prigorodnoye on the coast of Aniva Bay should be 100 percent reinjected underground or separated and stored in as safe a manner for the environment as reinjection. Discharge of any wastes into Aniva Bay is categorically impermissible. * Sakhalin Energy must takes full financial liability for any oil spill within Russia - including Aniva Bay and La Peruse strait - from tankers and compensate all expenses for liquidate and cleaning polluted areas, and pay compensations to injured people. International financial institutions should financially guarantee that the cleanup funding and compensation will be available after the accident. Sakhalin Energy says it has selected one site 12 kilometers (7.4 miles) offshore Sakhalin Island, over the Piltun feature of the Piltun-Astokhskoye oil and gas field. The company has selected another site for its production platform at the Lunskoye field situated approximately 14 kilometers (8.7 miles) from the coast in a water depth of approximately 50 meters (165 feet), with space to drill up to 27 wells. The pipeline route will cross some 1,100 watercourses, mostly small brooks and streams, but also a number of rivers. Sakhalin Energy says it is "committed to ensuring that its activities are carried out in an environmentally responsible manner, and recognizes the importance of these watercourses to the ecology and local economy of the island, particularly in terms of salmon fisheries." To learn more about Sakhalin Energy's development plans, visit: http://www.sakhalinenergy.com/ To find out more about the indigenous people of Sakhalin Island, visit: Pacific Environment at: http://www.pacificenvironment.org/index.htm and Sakhalin Environment Watch at: http://www.sakhalin.environment.ru/en/