NucNews - July 13, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR No future in nuclear Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - Bangor Daily News http://www.bangornews.com/news/templates/?a=116359 At long last, the energy industry's gravy train (aka The Energy Bill) has lumbered through the Senate, hauling more than $4 billion in direct subsidies and, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, $5.7 in production tax credits for nuclear power. Touting reactors as the "clean energy" solution to global warming, its backers also helped to load on unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of the cost of nuclear and other energy plants. However, the reality of this technology is precarious at best; it is always just a couple of pipe breaks or operator errors away from disaster. Despite the slick "greenhouse-gas-free" hype, nuclear power fails the more sober economic and national security litmus tests. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates a three-fold increase in worldwide carbon emissions between 1997 and 2100, even with an eight-fold increase in nuclear generation. If nuclear power replaced all coal in that scenario, emissions still climb by more than 2.5 times. To achieve that goal, the world would have to build at least 85 large (1,000-megawatt) nuclear reactors every year for the next century. At $4 billion each (the average price of large reactors coming on line in the 1980s and 1990s) such an undertaking would cost trillions of dollars. The Energy Information Administration stated in its 2005 Annual Energy Outlook that "new [nuclear] plants are not expected to be economical." At least one utility leader, Dominion CEO Thomas Capps, agrees: "If you announced you were going to build a new nuclear plant, Moody's and Standard & Poor's would assuredly drop your bonds to junk status, hedge funds would be bumping into each other trying to short your stock." Indeed, last year, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services found that "an electric utility with a nuclear exposure has weaker credit than one without and can expect to pay more on the margin for credit. Federal support of construction costs will do little to change that reality. Therefore, were a utility to embark on a new or expanded nuclear endeavor, Standard & Poor's would likely revisit its rating on the utility." On the other hand, prospects for combating climate change via energy efficiency improvements and sustainable energy resources are impressive. A 2004 study by Synapse Energy Economics found that the United States could reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation by more than 47 percent by 2025 compared to business as usual and meet projected electricity demand, while saving consumers $36 billion annually. Reactor technology is replete with historic red flags. More than five out of every 10 federal energy research and development dollars have fueled the nuclear power behemoth since World War II. For that investment, we now get about 20 percent of our electricity or 6 percent of our overall energy. Compare that with energy conservation which received less than two of every 10 dollars but eliminates about 25 percent of our energy needs each year and has the capacity to back out anywhere from 20 percent to 40 percent or more depending on whose numbers one believes. Even with the taxpayers' largess, the nuclear industry has been bailed out at least twice by utility customers and shareholders (first with the cancellation of more than 100 reactors in the early 1980s and then again with more than $100 billion when deregulation fever swept through the utility sector in the 1990s). Regardless, the tracks have been greased for the industry's revival by repeated renewal of the Price-Anderson Act (limited liability for this touted "safe" technology); one-step licensing (virtual elimination of citizen and state oversight); federal acceptance of the liability for nuclear waste (Yucca Mountain is a technically flawed site and made further suspect by falsified data); and more tax breaks and rule-making favoritism than can be listed. To curb global warming, viable technologies must be comparatively quickly and easily installed, and not require massive, centralized infrastructures. Reactors coming online since 1980 took an average of eight to 10 years to build (normally with massive cost overruns). Worldwide, security lapses, proliferation threats and terrorist strikes also shadow this technology as ominous wild cards. Consequently, as a global warming solution, nuclear power is on a dead- end track. Before nuclear power gets its third or fourth chance, Congress and President Bush should give a first, real chance to a hybrid, distributed network of appropriate energy efficiency programs and renewable energy sources (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal). It's an energy future we can afford and our children (and the planet) can live with. Scott Denman is the former executive director of the Safe Energy Communication Council. He is currently co-director of Collaborations, a conservation and communications consulting and training firm based in Virginia. He spends his summers in Seal Cove. He can be reached at sdenman@earthlink.net. ---- New Report Says World Faces 'Tipping Point' In Nuclear Proliferation By Jeffrey Donovan Radio Free Europe Wednesday, 13 July 2005 http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/7/B92C4122-51E2-4904-B856-67055F415E1A.html In recent years, there has been progress in the fight against the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. But the world has now reached a "tipping point," where either a real breakthrough is achieved against the spread of lethal weapons -- or the entire international nonproliferation regime comes crumbling down, setting off a dangerous new arms race. That is one key conclusion of a new study by Washington's Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Prague, 13 July 2005 (RFE/RL) -- Much has happened in the world since the publication more than two years ago of the first edition of Carnegie's "Deadly Arsenals." The book is a unique public catalogue of threats from the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Among other things, the United States went to war against Iraq, partly on grounds that its alleged weapons of mass destruction posed an unacceptable risk. As it turned out, those weapons were never found. Carnegie President Jessica Mathews said that's why the authors of the new edition of "Deadly Arsenals" -- published yesterday in Washington -- tried hard to stick to the known facts on proliferation. "If we have learned anything in the last few years, it's good to be as clear as we possibly can be about capability," Mathews said. "And, of course, I mean on both sides -- about not overestimating capability, but equally not underestimating capability." The study's main authors, Joseph Cirincione and Jon Wolfsthal, said they are no longer using the term "weapons of mass destruction" because it combines very different threats. They said the term's repeated use before the Iraq war merged the real possibility that Iraq had chemical arms with the unlikely notion that it possessed a nuclear capability. Such misleading presentation, the authors argue, can lead to "flawed policy." Cirincione said that getting the facts right -- particularly about nuclear proliferation -- is vital, since the stakes have perhaps never been higher. "Iran's [nuclear] program has advanced. North Korea's program has advanced," Cirincione said. "We are securing nuclear materials at a slower pace than we were previously. We are reducing the numbers of nuclear weapons at a slower pace than we were recently. There is a growing lack of confidence in the viability of the entire nonproliferation regime." Cirincione, speaking at the release of the book in Washington, underscored progress on proliferation in recent decades. For example, he said that while countries like Brazil or Libya once sought nuclear arms, they no longer do. He said the main threat is now mostly regional, confined to an "arc of crisis" from South Asia to the Middle East. "If we have learned anything in the last few years, it's good to be as clear as we possibly can be about capability. And, of course, I mean on both sides -- about not overestimating capability, but equally not underestimating capability." North Korea and, many believe, Iran are pursuing nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the entire international nonproliferation regime is at risk, a fact that was underscored by a United Nations conference in March on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which failed to reach any substantive agreements. Coupled with continued risks from aging nuclear stockpiles, as well as new threats of nuclear terrorism, Cirincione said the world is at a crossroads. "We think we're at a very delicate moment in the proliferation dangers," Cirincione said. "We've referred to it in other places as the nuclear 'tipping point,' where decisions we take in the next few years will decide whether we continue some of the progress that has historically occurred over the last two decades to reduce the number of countries with these weapons programs and reduce the numbers of these weapons -- or whether we fail to resolve these critical issues and we set off another great wave of proliferation." The authors of "Deadly Arsenals" said a key part of getting it right on proliferation is getting the threat assessment right. But Cirincione suggested the U.S.-led "war on terrorism" is exaggerating some threats. "No state ever has transferred nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons to a nonstate group," Cirincione said. "We think there are good reasons for that -- blowback, loss of control, you're going to get the blame for it anyway, just to give you the shorthand reasons. We think it's unlikely that any state would actually transfer that, but as you point out, it is possible, and that possibility is most present in North Korea." On Iran, Cirincione said all evidence suggests that the Islamic Republic is not ready to drop out of the NPT, reject a diplomatic solution with Europe on its nuclear program, and go all out to pursue nuclear weapons. "They are a good five to seven years away from the ability to either to make fuel for their reactors or material for a nuclear weapon," Cirincione said. "So, understanding the technological limitations that Iran is under may help you in negotiations with Iran to interpret their negotiating posture as just that. Part of it is a posture." Co-author Wolfsthal was also more upbeat about solving the Iranian nuclear issue, at least when compared to North Korea. He said Iran is more open and can be influenced. "One of the reasons I'm not totally pessimistic is because we've done it a lot," Wolfsthal said. "South Africa gave up an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus had the third-, fourth- and sixth-largest deployments in the world on their territories and now are nuclear [weapon] free. So, we know how to get this right. The question is, in the case of North Korea, have the dynamics gone too far down the road? I'm more pessimistic than [Cirincione]. I think there's a very slim chance that we're going to be able to get North Korea to think nuclear weapons are not in their interest." Both analysts said one of the key issues in the nonproliferation battle remains securing the world's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, a necessary component for nuclear weapons. They are urging the United States, Russia, and other governments to step up efforts to secure the material, present in nuclear research reactors in 40 countries, from falling into the hands of terrorists. -------- accidents and safety Where are the KI pills? Bulk supplies of a drug that would reduce health risks after a nuclear meltdown still haven't been delivered to the Cape and islands, more than two years after state law required potassium iodide for every community in the region. By KEVIN DENNEHY STAFF WRITER, Cape Cod Times (Published: July 13, 2005) http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/whereare13.htm For more than a year, the state Department of Public Health has been stalled because several towns were slow to formally request the supplies. And now that all the requests are in - and the state is finally sending out a $371,000 bill - there's no assurance that Entergy Corp., the only nuclear plant owner in Massachusetts, will pay it. For local leaders, who call the nonprescription drug a simple step to reduce risk if something were to go wrong at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, the delay has been utterly frustrating. If taken within a few hours of the release of nuclear radiation, potassium iodide, or KI, can reduce the chances of thyroid cancer, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children, infants and fetuses are particularly sensitive to thyroid disease. Once the drugs are delivered to towns across the region, communities will keep them stored in schools and emergency centers. But the towns are still waiting. ''The whole process has been painfully slow,'' said state Rep. Matthew Patrick, D-Falmouth, who pushed the original legislation. ''It's almost sad, really. Thank God we haven't had any accidents in the meantime.'' Potassium iodide essentially blocks the absorption of radioactive iodine by flooding the thyroid with non-radioactive iodine so there is no room for the radioactive molecules. While potassium iodide would not protect humans from all threats of exposure to radioactivity, the National Academy of Sciences has recommended that the government make it available to all people under 40 who live near a nuclear power plant. The state of Massachusetts already provides KI pills to communities within 10 miles of nuclear power plants. Fifty-mile radius But the post-9/11 legislation, signed by former Gov. Jane Swift, expanded the reach of the law to include towns on Cape Cod and the islands, which are up to 50 direct miles from the nuclear plant in Plymouth. That coverage also includes Massachusetts towns on Cape Ann - including Gloucester, Manchester-by-the-Sea and Essex - waterfront communities near the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant in New Hampshire. Before distributing the drugs, however, the state DPH wanted to have all communities on board to make the best use of bulk purchases. ''It's really inefficient to do this piecemeal, one community at a time,'' Suzanne Condon, director of DPH Center for Emergency Preparedness, said yesterday. It has taken more than 1½ years - and numerous letters - to sign up all 27 affected communities. Only in the last few weeks did the state finally hear from Gloucester, the final town to respond. With that, the DPH today will send the $371,000 bill to Entergy to cover the costs of the KI supplies, Condon said. About $345,000 of that would go for KI supplies on Cape Cod. Condon had no comment on whether she expected Entergy to deliver payment. ''We're going to send the bill ... and we'll see what comes back.'' Entergy officials yesterday were noncommittal. Times have changed since the legislation was approved just a couple of years ago, said Carol Wightman, a spokeswoman for the Pilgrim plant in Plymouth. At that time, she said, most energy utilities in the state bought energy from Seabrook in New Hampshire. Now, they don't. Bill goes to Entergy And since Entergy owns the only nuclear plant in Massachusetts, the company would have to cover the bill, even though the Pilgrim plant is some 50 miles from Cape Ann. ''The entire burden for the funding of the KI would be placed on Entergy,'' Wightman said. ''We're looking at the current basis and validity of the assess-ment process being used for KI on the Cape and Seabrook,'' she said. Some towns are getting impatient. In Sandwich, for instance, it's been two years since town meeting voters endorsed the acceptance of KI tablets. And still nothing. ''We've been waiting here,'' said David Mason, the Sandwich health agent. He says he has had several conversations with the state about the town's KI supplies. ''We've been told, 'It's coming. It's coming' ... It's something I think we'd like to have resolved.'' Kevin Dennehy can be reached at kdennehy@capecodonline.com. ---- Peaceful use of nuclear energy also poses dangers 13 July 2005 (DPA) Khaleej Times http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2005/July/theworld_July356.xml§ion=theworld HAMBURG - The peaceful use of nuclear energy can also pose dangers for mankind. Below is a list of major accidents at nuclear power plants over the last half century. 30 September 1999: An uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction at a uranium processing facility at Tokaimura, Japan led to the radioactive contamination of 439 people. Two died. 26 April 1986: An explosion and subsequent fire at a reactor at Chernobyl power plant in the Ukraine released radioactive material into the atmosphere. At least 32 people died immediately and another 8,000 later from the effects of contamination. More than 120,000 people had to be resettled. Elevated radiation levels were measured as far away as western Europe. 4 January 1986: A container of highly toxic gas exploded at a uranium processing factory in Gore, Oklahoma, killing one and contaminating hundreds. 28 March 1979: A failed pump at the nuclear power station on Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania led to the partial meltdown of a reactor core. 200,000 people had to be evacuated. 3 January 1961: An explosion at a research reactor in Idaho Falls, Idaho killed three and contaminated the surrounding environment. 7 October 1957: A fire in Britain’s Windscale reactor killed 39 and released radioactive material. After further accidents the power plant was renamed Sellafield in 1981. -------- business Athabasca Moonhops on Dazzling Uranium Strike By Tim Wood 13 Jul 2005 at 10:26 PM EDT (ResourceInvestor.com) http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=11328 NEW YORK -- UEX Corporation [TSX:UEX] saw its market value soar more than 78% in a couple of hours, and on staggering volume of 4.7 million shares. A superlative drill hole intercept at the Shea Creek joint venture drove the stock, which had until recently been a laggard among its uranium seeking peers. With the price of uranium oxide well entrenched just below $30 per pound, up almost five fold since 2001, stocks associated with the mineral have been on a tear. As a result, and because uranium deposits are so common, dozens of not-so-new projects are coming online to take advantage of the boom. So far little harm has been done with all boats floating higher on the rising price tide. The Shea Creek project, under option from COGEMA, a subsidiary of French integrated uranium giant AREVA [PSX:CIE], reported that drill hole SHE-114-5 intercepted 27.4% U3O8 over 8.8 metres, including 58.32% U3O8 over 3.5 metres. That’s a glory hole if ever there was one, and it was complemented by Hole SHE-114-5 also intersecting meaningful uranium, including 1.08% U3O8 over 2.2 metres and 5.48% U3O8 over 1.8 metres. The news was also helpful to nearby projects in the basin, led by Titan Uranium Exploration [TSXv:TUE] which gained nearly 41% on the Toronto Venture Board. The reconstituted uranium explorer listed in June and just recently optioned several Athabasca projects. The timing was perfect with the Castle North claims located to the North, East, and South of Shea Creek and with the same structures apparent. Other Athabasca juniors making a showing were JNR Resources [TSXv:JNN] which gained 17%, Canalaska Ventures [TSXv:CVV] gained 16%, whilst Strathmore Minerals [TSXv:STM] shot up 12%. UEX’s owners, Pioneer Metals [TSX:PSM] and Cameco [CCJ], gained 16% and two fifths of a per cent respectively. The drilling was conducted by COGEMA as the operator at the project. The 2005 Spring/Summer drilling program has been underway since April and wraps up in the fall. The spectacular intercepts came from work on the Anne and Colette deposits at Shea Creek which is located in the Western Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan. It’s too early to be sure about what the full drill programme will reveal, but a geologist we consulted said it was certainly impressive. He thought there might be some comparison with the structure of the depleted Eagle Point and Collins Bay deposits owned by Cameco. However, he warned that the intercepts above and below the unconformity could be a problem for water ingress if the deposit were mined, though it was hardly likely to derail things. UEX noted that it was “unprecedented to see a mineralized intersection of this grade and thickness so high in the sandstone above the unconformity.” ---- Increase in uranium price predicted Associated Press July 13, 2005 http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/07/13/build/wyoming/30-uranium-price.inc CASPER - Prices and production of uranium likely will rise substantially as demand grows for nuclear power overseas, a nuclear energy expert told a conference here. Uranium prices have tripled from three years ago, so exploration likely will increase dramatically, Tom Pool, chairman of International Nuclear Inc., a consulting firm in Golden, Colo., said Monday at the Global Uranium Symposium 2005 in Casper. "Next year could be a banner year for drilling companies in the Western U.S.," he said. Before a price collapse in the 1980s, Wyoming had about eight uranium operations, producing 12 million pounds per year. Now it has one: the Smith Ranch-Highland mine north of Douglas, which is owned by Cameco Corp., of Saskatchewan, Canada. The mine employs about 80 people and produced 1.5 million pounds of uranium last year. Price increases are being fueled, among other factors, by increased demand for nuclear power in China, India, Brazil and Eastern Europe. Production likely will rise from about 100 million pounds a year worldwide to 160 million pounds in coming years, Pool said. The spot price for uranium last week was $29 a pound, according to Ux Consulting Co., of Roswell, Ga., compared with $9.85 in July 2002. The price has risen $8 a pound since February. "That is really going to stimulate uranium production," Pool said. "It's yet to be determined how high the price is going to go." The price collapse two decades ago has been attributed by nuclear experts to the Three Mile Island accident - which scared away investment in new power plants - and unloading of uranium supplies after the Soviet Union fell apart and the Clinton administration privatized a government uranium-enrichment program. An audience member at Monday's symposium pointed out that in uranium's boom years, oil companies were very involved. "Today, I don't think we have any oil company anywhere in the world involved in uranium," Pool said. He expects entrepreneurial firms will take the lead over the next two to three years but that oil companies could be major players again if favorable economic conditions continue. Christine Atkinson, vice president for International Nuclear Inc., said government policy also could play a vital role. For example, whether the federal government releases large supplies for nuclear fuel at no fixed cost would be a key factor. The design of power plants, their fuel reloading methods and their views on inventory also could affect the market, she said. Even so, the future for uranium looks bright, Pool said. "We have a very strong industry," he said, "an industry that's growing and will be around for a very long time." In 2004, domestic uranium production totaled 2.3 million pounds, according to the federal Energy Information Administration, compared to 2 million pounds in 2003 and 6.3 million pounds in 1996. The World Nuclear Association said the top producers of uranium from mines last year were Canada, Australia and Kazakhstan. The United States was No. 8. ---- A quest to double nuclear power China's drive for fuel provides big opportunities for foreign firms By ELAINE KURTENBACH Associated Press July 13, 2005, 9:05PM http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/3265255 QINSHAN, CHINA - The shadows of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island no longer reach to the pine-crested hillsides of Hangzhou Bay, where China is rushing to expand a nuclear power station to meet soaring demand for electricity for its economic boom. Driven by crushing fuel shortages, smog and ambitions to profit from its hard-won nuclear prowess, Beijing has embarked on a quest to more than double its nuclear power generating capacity by 2020. The push for more nuclear power means opportunities for U.S., French and Russian technology suppliers that are competing for up to $8 billion in contracts for two new nuclear power plants — the biggest deals in years for the industry. The French nuclear group AREVA, Russia's AtomStroyExport and Westinghouse Electric Co. — the U.S. unit of British Nuclear Fuels, which Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has offered to buy — are awaiting a Chinese decision on bids for facilities at Sanmen, in the eastern province of Zhejiang, and Yangjiang in Guangdong province, which borders Hong Kong. "We are fully committed to transferring our advanced nuclear technology to China," Paul Felten, a senior vice president of AREVA's Framatome unit, said at a recent conference in Shanghai. At Qinshan, a two-hour drive southwest of Shanghai and its 20 million residents, sites are being prepared for four new reactors, in addition to the five already operating. "The excavation is almost finished," said Yang Lanhe, general manager for Qinshan Phase II, China's showcase for domestically developed nuclear technology. He pointed out the window to a site cleared and waiting for construction to begin. Yang and other executives at Qinshan speak of nuclear power with the conviction of true believers. They point to China's own accident-free record after 14 years of nuclear power generation. And they say technology has advanced far beyond that used decades earlier, when the 1979 partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania and the 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl plant in the Ukraine decimated public support for atomic energy in the West. "We know and understand that nuclear power is a clean and good energy, and we think it would be good to increase its share of production" said Hu Haiyun, Communist Party boss for the Qinshan Nuclear Base. China's nuclear program, dating back to the 1950s, began commercial operations only in 1991, at Qinshan. For six years, beginning in 1997, dozens of potential projects were put on hold amid concerns over excess capacity, safety and the relatively high costs of nuclear-generated electricity. The race to build more plants resumed last year, as China struggled with blackouts in its worst energy crisis in decades. From the highest levels of Chinese government to the technicians running Qinshan and other plants, there is a newfound conviction that nuclear power is the most practical option for reducing the country's reliance on heavily polluting coal-fired power plants. "Build Nuclear Power, Enrich the People," reads a slogan on billboards throughout the facility, built into a peninsula surrounded by farms and fishing villages. Industry officials point to Qinshan's success in exporting technology to Pakistan to build a nuclear plant as evidence of China's own capabilities. But they are frank about their need for foreign help in developing future technology. China has been developing its own reactors, based on technology originally acquired from France, but is focusing on developing so-called fast reactors that its experts say use uranium more efficiently. But like other countries, China is still struggling over how to handle the radioactive waste from its plants. Officials said research was focusing on the fast reactor technology that can reduce the amount of waste and boost efficiency of uranium usage by up to 70 times — a bonus for China, which will eventually need to import most of the uranium it needs as its nuclear program expands. Managers at Qinshan refused to say how much waste is stored there. "We have enough space to hold it," said Hu, the Communist Party secretary. "I trust our country has the ability to resolve this problem." -------- canada Provinces want nuclear plant refurbished Canadian Broadcast News Wednesday, July 13, 2005 http://www.canada.com/maritimes/news/story.html?id=a4e66b87-cec7-4ba7-8e2d-93254f9865a1 CHARLOTTETOWN -- Liberal leaders from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick agree that refurbishing the Point Lepreau nuclear station is critical. They met in Charlottetown on Wednesday to talk about energy issues challenging the region. Both Robert Ghiz and Shawn Graham said they believe in long term renewable energy policies. However, both add that it is important to be practical and recognize the need for back up. Graham says decommissioning Point Lepreau, located near Saint John, N.B., and building a new coal fired plant in New Brunswick is not an option. He said nuclear power is a stable fuel source that doesn't go through the ups and downs of fossil fuels. The Prince Edward Island government is hoping to move completely to renewable energy by 2015, with an emphasis on wind power. Recent estimates indicate that refurbishing the New Brunswick plant cost will cost about $1.4 billion. New Brunswick has not yet reached a final decision on what it plans to do. Ghiz said he believes the P.E.I. government needs to throw its support behind a refurbishing plan. "Prince Edward Island right now buys 95 per cent of our energy from New Brunswick,'' he said. "We are trying to increase our renewable energy in Prince Edward Island so we're not so reliant on others, but the reality is that for years to come we are going to be relying on New Brunswick.'' "What happens at Point Lepreau is going to influence what happens in Prince Edward Island.'' Between 20 and 30 per cent of the energy P.E.I. receives from New Brunswick comes from the nuclear plant. Ghiz said he's been told P.E.I. would pay about five per cent of the refurbishing costs. -------- iran Iran is close to a nuclear bomb”: Iranian scientist Wed. 13 Jul 2005 Face to Face Iran Focus http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2840 An interview with a defector from Iran’s secretive nuclear establishment Paris, Jul. 13 - Alireza Assar received his Master of Science degree in high energy physics and elementary particles from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland in 1977, his PhD in mathematics from the University of Vienna, and studied theoretical physics at the prestigious International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy. He was a professor of physics in Shahid Bahonar University in Kerman (southern Iran) and acted as a Ministry of Defence consultant on Iran's nuclear programme until the early 1990s. He left Iran in 1992, but has maintained contact with his friends and fellow scientists in the country. Iran Focus: Many suspect Iran of secretly running a nuclear weapons programme. Iran says its nuclear programme is for entirely peaceful purposes. What is the truth? Assar: There are two parallel nuclear programmes in Iran. The one run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) is centred on the light water reactor in Bushehr. Ostensibly, this plant was designed to generate electricity. But the Iranian regime has developed a vast uranium enrichment programme that was hidden from the outside world until 2002, when the National Council of Resistance of Iran first exposed it. This is the military programme that was designed to produce enough highly enriched uranium to enable the regime to produce nuclear weapons. I know for certain that this programme has been in operation for at least 18 years, and it has been under the control of the Revolutionary Guards and the Ministry of Defence, completely separated from the AEOI. There are many experts in AEOI who have no information about the military programme. Q: Iran’s Foreign Minister said recently that Iran has a rapidly growing population and needs nuclear power to produce electricity. A: It’s an insult to intelligence to say that a regime that was hiding a vast uranium enrichment programme and other critical aspects of its nuclear project from the international community for 18 years was trying to produce electricity. Q: How did you become involved in the military side of the nuclear programme? A: They came to me. When I was teaching in the University of Kerman, the Revolutionary Guards invited me in 1985 to cooperate with them on a nuclear project. I even had two meetings in 1987 and 1988 with then-Commander in Chief of the Revolutionary Guards, Mohsen Rezai [now the secretary general of the State Expediency Council], who came with two of his senior commanders to Kerman for these meetings. We met in the office of the governor of Kerman. They were interested in neutron triggers for nuclear explosion. I suggested that the research would be cost-prohibitive. They said how much do you have in mind? I said, 100 million dollars. Rezai smiled and said, “We had allocated 800 million dollars to this. Go ahead”. This and other conversations with the top commanders of the Revolutionary Guards proved to me that they were after the nuclear bomb and that this was a state policy. Could commanders of the Revolutionary Guards act just on their own and dole out 800-million-dollar budgets? No way. Q: Were you alone in those meetings? A: No. There were two other nuclear scientists, Alireza Bahrampour and Mohammad Bolourizadeh. Both of them worked for the Ministry of Defence. Bahrampour focused on the use of laser technology in missile guidance systems. The Revolutionary Guards have for long been studying the problems associated with delivery of nuclear weapons. The actual production of a crude nuclear bomb was not such a big challenge, but to make a bomb light enough and small enough to fit into the warhead of a missile was a much bigger challenge. They have been working on that for years. Q: How soon will they have the bomb? A: As a physicist with a lot of experience and contacts inside Iran’s nuclear establishment, I have no doubt in my mind that the regime in Tehran is not far from the nuclear bomb. They have the precursors they need, so it’s a matter of engineering and time. We mustn’t have any illusions. The current leadership in Tehran sees nuclear weapons as an indispensable part of its strategy. Q: How does the arrival of the new ultra-conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad change things? A: You have to understand that the nuclear weapons programme is the exclusive fief of the Revolutionary Guards. Now that you have at the head of the executive branch a former commander of the Revolutionary Guards with a track record as the one Ahmadinejad has, the nuclear weapons programme will receive a great boost. They will be able to make use of all the resources of the state without worrying about other internal factions. So Ahmadinejad’s arrival is going to make the nuclear clock in Iran tick faster. He is an obedient disciple of [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei, so the nuclear talks [with the Europeans] will certainly get to nowhere. Q: There is a big row over the question of uranium enrichment. The U.S. position is that Iran must abandon enrichment altogether. The British and the Germans agree, but France seems to be willing to allow a degree of enrichment to continue. How do you see this? A: It’ll be a disaster to allow the Iranian regime to continue any enrichment programme. Why does the regime insist on keeping even a limited enrichment programme? The reason is that if you have thousands of centrifuge machines, which they have, then it will be very easy for them to hide a certain number of these machines in some of the many military sites. Q: So it’s hopeless to try to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? A: It will certainly be hopeless to continue the cat-and-mouse game that has been going on for the past three years. The Europeans have put themselves in a hopeless position with their two agreements with Tehran. In this game, the onus is on them to find the needle in the haystack. They must find out if Iran is hiding centrifuge machines in a country three times as big as France. The mullahs have a policy of “catch me if you can”. The Iranian regime has never come forward and declared something completely unknown to the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]. Every single declaration by the Iranian regime has been in response to revelations by the National Council of Resistance or discoveries by the IAEA itself. Iran’s declarations are a collection of denials, changes stories, and belated admissions. Q: What about the Iranian people? Some commentators say the majority of Iranians want the Islamic Republic to have nuclear weapons. A: That’s just buying their propaganda at face value. The vast majority of Iranians, particularly the educated people and scientists, cannot wait to see the end of this religious dictatorship. So they see nuclear weapons in the hands of the mullahs as something that will prolong their rule. That’s why they don’t want it. Q: What should be done? A: If there is a will, there is a way. Stop the concessions and take the case to the Security Council and make it clear that the world will not tolerate an Islamic fundamentalist regime and state sponsor of terrorism armed with nuclear weapons. The mullahs understand the language of force. The only way to stop them is to make the choice crystal clear to them. At the moment, they think the West is too divided and irresolute and interested in trade and oil to act with firmness. ---- Iran to press ahead with civil nuclear development Iran-European Union, Politics, 7/13/2005 http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/050713/2005071335.html IRNA reported today that: Rapporteur of Majlis Commission on National Security and Foreign Policy Kazem Jalali said on Wednesday that Iran is waiting for the EU proposal. "If we accept the proposal, we will proceed with talks." "EU proposal should not ignore Iranian right as stipulated by Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to use nuclear energy for generating electricity. Otherwise, the government should resume uranium enrichment in line with Majlis approval," he said. Majlis passed a decision last month requiring the government to resume uranium enrichment on small scale for generating electricity in Bushehr power plant. Iran signed Additional Protocol to NPT and made it clear that Iranian nuclear program is for civilian purpose. Iranian religious leaders including Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei have prohibited production of nuclear weapons as 'Haram' (religiously forbidden), IRNA said. "Even though Iran suffered many casualties from Iraqi chemical attacks against Iranian soldiers in the course of Iraqi-imposed war (1980-1988), Iran never considered using similar weapons against Iraq, because weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is Haram (forbidden in Islam)," the Supreme Leader said in remarks concerning nuclear program. ---- Iran waiting for EU practical plan on Iranian nuclear program Tehran, July 13, 2005 IRNA http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0507131024172436.htm Rapporteur of Majlis Commission on National Security and Foreign Policy Kazem Jalali said on Wednesday that EU has two months to come up with a practical plan about Iran's national nuclear program. He told reporters that Iran is waiting for the EU proposal. "If we accept the proposal, we will proceed with talks." "EU proposal should not ignore Iranian right as stipulated by Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to use nuclear energy for generating electricity. Otherwise, the government should resume uranium enrichment in line with Majlis approval," he said. Majlis passed a decision last month requiring the government to resume uranium enrichment on small scale for generating electricity in Bushehr power plant. Iran has temporarily suspended uranium enrichment as confidence building gesture and said that it had established full fuel-cycle in line with safeguard agreement of International Atomic Energy Agency The US and EU want objective guarantee from Iran to go ahead with uranium enrichment to produce fuels for power plants. IAEA required Iran to sign Additional Protocol to NPT as a measure for objective guarantee which grants intrusive inspection to the international watchdog. Iran signed Additional Protocol to NPT and made it clear that Iranian nuclear program is for civilian purpose. Iranian religious leaders including Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei have prohibited production of uclear weapons as 'Haram'(religiously forbidden). The Supreme Leader's decrees are effective in all state affairs. "Even though Iran suffered many casualties from Iraqi chemical attacks against Iranian soldiers in the course of Iraqi-imposed war (1980-1988), Iran never considered using similar weapons against Iraq, because weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is Haram (forbidden in Islam)," the Supreme Leader said in remarks concerning nuclear program. ---- US warns Iran on nuclear program, Iraq Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:55 PM ET (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050713/wl_afp/irannuclearusiraq_050713215543 WASHINGTON, July 13 - The United States told Iran not to resume enriching uranium, which could feed a nuclear weapon, and also cautioned Tehran to keep its hands out of Iraq's internal affairs. The latest US warnings followed an almost daily barrage of charge and counter charge between the two rivals, as both sides size up the situation following the presidential election win of hardline Mahmood Ahmadinejad. The White House said it would continue to support efforts by the European Union to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. "There needs to be an objective guarantee from Iran to make sure that they are not developing nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian program," said spokesman Scott McClellan. "That means there needs to be a permanent end to their uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities. We have made that very clear," he said. Asked whether the resumption of uranium enrichment would end US support for talks led by Britain, France and Germany, he replied: "I'm not going to play 'what-ifs,' but Iran did make a commitment" to freeze such activity. "They need to abide by that commitment. They also need to abide by their international obligations, which they have violated over the last couple of decades," said the spokesman. Senior Iranian officials have recently been quoted as saying that Tehran will soon resume uranium enrichment and will reject any proposal from the European Union that does not recognise the Islamic republic's right to do so. The Islamic republic suspended enrichment in October 2003 and widened the freeze last year. However, it has a track record of covering up its activities and shopping illegally on the international black market. The United States accuses oil-rich Iran of using a civilian nuclear energy program to cover up activities linked to developing atomic weapons. Tehran has rejected the charge and said it has a right to nuclear power. Britain, France and Germany are trying to convince Iran to abandon program to enrich uranium -- which could be diverted to making a bomb -- and have promised to come up with the outlines of a long-term accord by the end of July. The new US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad meanwhile said Tehran should not exploit its improving ties with Iraq to interfere in the affairs of the fledgling government in Baghdad. "It is not US policy to advocate or promote a hostile relationship between Iraq and Iran, they are neighbours," said Khalilzad at a briefing for foreign reporters. "We want to see these two countries have good relations with each other, but good relations also means that everything be done that is not interference in Iraqi affairs." "All the neighbours may not seek to dominate particular Iraqi institutions, or Iraqi areas, and (should) work together to have an Iraq that can works for all Iraqis that can stand on its own feet, is at peace internally, as well as at peace with its neigbours." Iraq's defence minister Saadun al-Dulaimi made a landmark visit to Iran last week, and both sides pledged to begin military and anti-terrorist cooperation. Washington's latest statements on Iran, came hours after Tehran furiously refuted a suggestion by US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that it could be among the culprits for a suicide attack in Israel which killed four Israelis and the bomber. "I wouldn't want to suggest that I know about the attack today, but clearly that's been one of the stated and continuous purposes of Iran, to harm Israel," said Rumsfeld. Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi hit back in a statement that Rumsfeld's declaration was "is aimed at trying to cover up the failure of the United States in the region." The United States has yet to reveal the results of its inquiry into claims that Ahmadinejad played a role in the 1979 seizure of hostages at the US embassy in Tehran, Close aides to the Ahmadinejad have denied the claims, made by several former US hostages. ---- “Iran is close to a nuclear bomb”: Iranian scientist An interview with a defector from Iran’s secretive nuclear establishment Wed. 13 Jul 2005 Face to Face Iran Focus http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2840 Paris, Jul. 13 - Alireza Assar received his Master of Science degree in high energy physics and elementary particles from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland in 1977, his PhD in mathematics from the University of Vienna, and studied theoretical physics at the prestigious International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy. He was a professor of physics in Shahid Bahonar University in Kerman (southern Iran) and acted as a Ministry of Defence consultant on Iran's nuclear programme until the early 1990s. He left Iran in 1992, but has maintained contact with his friends and fellow scientists in the country. Iran Focus: Many suspect Iran of secretly running a nuclear weapons programme. Iran says its nuclear programme is for entirely peaceful purposes. What is the truth? Assar: There are two parallel nuclear programmes in Iran. The one run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) is centred on the light water reactor in Bushehr. Ostensibly, this plant was designed to generate electricity. But the Iranian regime has developed a vast uranium enrichment programme that was hidden from the outside world until 2002, when the National Council of Resistance of Iran first exposed it. This is the military programme that was designed to produce enough highly enriched uranium to enable the regime to produce nuclear weapons. I know for certain that this programme has been in operation for at least 18 years, and it has been under the control of the Revolutionary Guards and the Ministry of Defence, completely separated from the AEOI. There are many experts in AEOI who have no information about the military programme. Q: Iran’s Foreign Minister said recently that Iran has a rapidly growing population and needs nuclear power to produce electricity. A: It’s an insult to intelligence to say that a regime that was hiding a vast uranium enrichment programme and other critical aspects of its nuclear project from the international community for 18 years was trying to produce electricity. Q: How did you become involved in the military side of the nuclear programme? A: They came to me. When I was teaching in the University of Kerman, the Revolutionary Guards invited me in 1985 to cooperate with them on a nuclear project. I even had two meetings in 1987 and 1988 with then-Commander in Chief of the Revolutionary Guards, Mohsen Rezai [now the secretary general of the State Expediency Council], who came with two of his senior commanders to Kerman for these meetings. We met in the office of the governor of Kerman. They were interested in neutron triggers for nuclear explosion. I suggested that the research would be cost-prohibitive. They said how much do you have in mind? I said, 100 million dollars. Rezai smiled and said, “We had allocated 800 million dollars to this. Go ahead”. This and other conversations with the top commanders of the Revolutionary Guards proved to me that they were after the nuclear bomb and that this was a state policy. Could commanders of the Revolutionary Guards act just on their own and dole out 800-million-dollar budgets? No way. Q: Were you alone in those meetings? A: No. There were two other nuclear scientists, Alireza Bahrampour and Mohammad Bolourizadeh. Both of them worked for the Ministry of Defence. Bahrampour focused on the use of laser technology in missile guidance systems. The Revolutionary Guards have for long been studying the problems associated with delivery of nuclear weapons. The actual production of a crude nuclear bomb was not such a big challenge, but to make a bomb light enough and small enough to fit into the warhead of a missile was a much bigger challenge. They have been working on that for years. Q: How soon will they have the bomb? A: As a physicist with a lot of experience and contacts inside Iran’s nuclear establishment, I have no doubt in my mind that the regime in Tehran is not far from the nuclear bomb. They have the precursors they need, so it’s a matter of engineering and time. We mustn’t have any illusions. The current leadership in Tehran sees nuclear weapons as an indispensable part of its strategy. Q: How does the arrival of the new ultra-conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad change things? A: You have to understand that the nuclear weapons programme is the exclusive fief of the Revolutionary Guards. Now that you have at the head of the executive branch a former commander of the Revolutionary Guards with a track record as the one Ahmadinejad has, the nuclear weapons programme will receive a great boost. They will be able to make use of all the resources of the state without worrying about other internal factions. So Ahmadinejad’s arrival is going to make the nuclear clock in Iran tick faster. He is an obedient disciple of [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei, so the nuclear talks [with the Europeans] will certainly get to nowhere. Q: There is a big row over the question of uranium enrichment. The U.S. position is that Iran must abandon enrichment altogether. The British and the Germans agree, but France seems to be willing to allow a degree of enrichment to continue. How do you see this? A: It’ll be a disaster to allow the Iranian regime to continue any enrichment programme. Why does the regime insist on keeping even a limited enrichment programme? The reason is that if you have thousands of centrifuge machines, which they have, then it will be very easy for them to hide a certain number of these machines in some of the many military sites. Q: So it’s hopeless to try to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? A: It will certainly be hopeless to continue the cat-and-mouse game that has been going on for the past three years. The Europeans have put themselves in a hopeless position with their two agreements with Tehran. In this game, the onus is on them to find the needle in the haystack. They must find out if Iran is hiding centrifuge machines in a country three times as big as France. The mullahs have a policy of “catch me if you can”. The Iranian regime has never come forward and declared something completely unknown to the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]. Every single declaration by the Iranian regime has been in response to revelations by the National Council of Resistance or discoveries by the IAEA itself. Iran’s declarations are a collection of denials, changes stories, and belated admissions. Q: What about the Iranian people? Some commentators say the majority of Iranians want the Islamic Republic to have nuclear weapons. A: That’s just buying their propaganda at face value. The vast majority of Iranians, particularly the educated people and scientists, cannot wait to see the end of this religious dictatorship. So they see nuclear weapons in the hands of the mullahs as something that will prolong their rule. That’s why they don’t want it. Q: What should be done? A: If there is a will, there is a way. Stop the concessions and take the case to the Security Council and make it clear that the world will not tolerate an Islamic fundamentalist regime and state sponsor of terrorism armed with nuclear weapons. The mullahs understand the language of force. The only way to stop them is to make the choice crystal clear to them. At the moment, they think the West is too divided and irresolute and interested in trade and oil to act with firmness. ---- Iran's top nuclear negotiator says may be replaced Wed Jul 13, 2005 06:30 AM ET By Paul Hughes (Reuters) http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=L30EHKBERGW4KCRBAELCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=9053930 TEHRAN - Iran's top nuclear negotiator has said he may be removed by hardline president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and warned that a new negotiating team may reverse Iran's decision to freeze uranium enrichment-related work. European diplomats have expressed concerns that pragmatic cleric Hassan Rohani may be replaced by a more hardline official when reformist President Mohammad Khatami's term ends on Aug. 4, signaling a hardening of Iran's nuclear policy stance. Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday he would take "new measures" regarding Iran's nuclear negotiations with the European Union. Rohani said a new negotiating team may reverse Iran's decision last November to freeze uranium enrichment-related work to allay fears in the West that it wants to make atomic arms. "The new president naturally has the right to appoint whoever he chooses," Rohani, who has led Iran's nuclear talks with the European Union since 2003, said in an interview published in the liberal Sharq daily on Wednesday. "I don't think anyone is against negotiations (with the European Union), but there might be differences in our approach about suspension (of nuclear work). It is possible that this different viewpoint may be implemented," he added. Rohani and his negotiating team of senior diplomats and security officials have frequently been criticized in Iran's hardline media for agreeing to suspend uranium enrichment and allow intrusive U.N. inspections of nuclear facilities. On Tuesday Rohani himself warned Iran would resume some uranium processing work -- a move which could see Iran's case referred to the U.N. Security Council -- if the EU did not recognize its right to make its own nuclear power reactor fuel. TOUGH BUT REASONABLE Iran, which insists its nuclear ambitions are limited to peaceful purposes, will hold crucial talks in August on an EU proposal about the long-term future of its atomic program. The EU wants Iran to scrap nuclear fuel work, such as uranium enrichment, which could be used to make bomb-grade material, in return for economic and other incentives. Iran says it will never give up nuclear fuel cycle work. EU diplomats say they have found Rohani and his team to be tough but reasonable adversaries who have skillfully managed to prevent Iran's case being escalated to the Security Council as Washington wants. Ahmadinejad, who won a landslide election victory on June 24, said on Tuesday he had new ideas on how to tackle the nuclear issue. "Definitely the new government will adopt new measures which will be announced later," he said after a meeting on Tuesday with parliamentarians to discuss his future cabinet's composition. He did not elaborate. Local media have said that former state broadcasting chief Ali Larijani, a hard-liner close to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would replace Rohani and take charge of the nuclear negotiations with the EU. But the semi-official Mehr news agency, citing an informed source, said on Tuesday Larijani would be made Iran's new foreign minister, replacing Kamal Kharrazi. Ahmadinejad's office has refused to discuss any speculation about future cabinet posts. -------- korea China signals high-stakes role in North Korea 13 Jul 2005 06:54:12 GMT Source: Reuters By Lindsay Beck http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP343756.htm BEIJING, July 13 (Reuters) - An old ally of Pyongyang and the source of most of its aid, China can wield both a carrot and stick to woo North Korea back to six-party talks, but as early as last week there were grumblings it was using neither. Much was made of the steak and cheesecake dinner between Christopher Hill, Washington's top diplomat in the region, and North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan, that led to Pyongyang's surprise announcement it would return to negotiations on its nuclear programmes. But hot on the heels of the weekend message, Chinese State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan has taken off for the North, signalling Beijing is still a key player in the process. "It is no coincidence that the dinner meeting involving Assistant Secretary Hill and representatives from North Korea was hosted in Beijing," Thomas Christensen, a political scientist at Princeton University, said in an e-mail to Reuters. China hosted the first three rounds of six-way talks, that also involved South Korea, the United States, Japan and Russia. But when North Korea pulled out last year, the credibility of China as a world power aiming to prove it had the diplomatic skills to match its economic clout was on the line. "China had a role to play, but it's been more of a facilitation role, rather than actually getting the agreement," said a Beijing-based Western diplomat. While China insisted the crux of the problem was mistrust between the United States and North Korea, there were quiet grumblings that China was not using the leverage of food and fuel aid to strongarm Pyongyang back to the table. For China, the stakes are high. "I really don't think they are using aid as pressure, because they have said very clearly that whatever Washington decides they will continue supporting North Korea," said Kathi Zellweger of the Catholic charity Caritas. "I think China is very interested in keeping stability in that area. I think that's the key," said Zellweger, who frequently travels to the North. MATTER OF FACE A collapse of Kim Jong-il's regime in North Korea could lead to millions of refugees spilling across its borders which would result in chaos for both countries. But if Beijing has been more reluctant than Washington to use threats, analysts say Tang's visit is a reminder of the diplomatic role it is playing. "It's giving the North some face for coming back to talks," Taylor Fravel, a China foreign policy expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said of Tang's visit. "But Tang is a bit of a softball since the big visit would be Hu Jintao." In Beijing at the weekend, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a point of mentioning China's "active role", but what goes on behind closed doors is anybody's guess. "It's impossible to know what they say when they go to North Korea," Fravel said. But he and other analysts say the Chinese have likely indicated they would be forced to take a tougher line if Pyongyang conducted a nuclear weapons test. Tang met North Korean Premier Pak Pong-ju on Tuesday, but China's Foreign Ministry said it did not know if he would meet Kim during his three-day visit, which ends on Thursday. "During his stay he will have an exchange of views with DPRK leaders," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said, without giving details. "China will work will all sides to push forward the fourth round of talks to bear fruit," he said. For that to happen, analysts say China's job is far from over. "If the talks are to produce more than just diplomatic photo opportunities, China will need to stay engaged actively to convince North Korea to make the strategic decision to give up its nuclear weapons programmes in a verifiable way," Christensen said. ---- Kim Jong Il Wants Nuclear-Free Korea Wednesday July 13, 2005 2:31 PM By ALEXA OLESEN Associated Press Writer http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5138016,00.html BEIJING (AP) - North Korean leader Kim Jong Il told a visiting Chinese diplomat Wednesday that his country seeks a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, China's official Xinhua News Agency reported. Xinhua also paraphrased Kim as saying he hoped six-party international talks could be an important platform for realizing that goal. A new round of talks - involving the two Koreas, the United States, China, Russia and Japan - are expected to begin in Beijing the week of July 25. Kim made his remarks to Chinese State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan, who is on a diplomatic mission to the North as a representative of President Hu Jintao, Xinhua said. North Korea ``expects the next round of the talks to be held on time and make positive progress,'' Kim was quoted as saying. He also thanked China for its ``unremitting efforts toward the resumption of the six-party talks,'' Xinhua said, paraphrasing the reclusive leader. China, the North's last major ally, has campaigned hard over the past year to restart the disarmament negotiations. Beijing is believed to supply North Korea with up to one-third of its food and one-quarter of its energy needs. The report came after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised a South Korean energy aid proposal that enticed North Korea to end its 13-month boycott of the disarmament talks and expressed hope for an end to the international standoff. The United States and South Korea are ``very optimistic that our joint efforts to improve the security situation on the Korean Peninsula could indeed bear fruit, although of course there is still much work to be done,'' Rice said during a visit to Seoul, South Korea. North Korea said over the weekend it would return to the nuclear talks after being reassured by the top U.S. nuclear envoy that Washington recognized Pyongyang's sovereignty. The North has stayed away from the weapons negotiations since June 2004, citing ``hostile'' U.S. policies. Pyongyang declared in February that it had nuclear weapons and has insisted that the nuclear standoff can only be discussed with the United States. The North's claim has not been verified independently. In March, it declared that it should be treated equally as a nuclear power, and it demanded that the six-nation talks address the disarmament of all countries involved - including the United States. But last month, Kim said North Korea would return to the talks if it received appropriate respect from Washington. On Wednesday, Rice urged North Korea to be prepared for substantive discussions on giving up its nuclear arms. ``The agreement of the North Koreans to come back to the talks is a very good step but only a first step,'' she said. ``We look forward to a strategic decision by the North Koreans to abandon their nuclear weapons.'' On Tuesday ahead of Rice's arrival, South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-young said South Korea has offered to provide electricity to the North if it agrees to give up nuclear weapons at the revived arms talks - a previously secret proposal he made directly to the North Korean leader at a meeting last month. Rice noted Wednesday that the North's energy needs were also addressed in a U.S. proposal made at the last nuclear talks in June 2004 that she said ``is still on the table.'' Washington has promised diplomatic recognition and economic aid to the North only after it verifiably dismantles its nuclear weapons program. Chung said the North has not responded directly to the plan, which also has been presented to U.S. officials. South Korea on Tuesday also pledged to give 500,000 tons of rice to North Korea - Seoul's largest food shipment in five years - in aid that is not tied to the nuclear issue and that was agreed during economic talks between the two Koreas. ---- N Korea's Kim Jong-Il hopes talks to be 'important platform' to denuclearisation 07.13.2005, 10:14 AM AFX News Limited http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2005/07/13/afx2136394.html BEIJING (AFX) - North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il said he hopes talks on his country's atomic weapons program will be an 'important platform' for the Korean peninsula's denuclearisation, state media reported. 'The realisation of the Korean peninsula's denuclearisation is the target of North Korea,' Xinhua news agency quoted Kim as telling Chinese presidential envoy Tang Jiaxuan in Pyongyang. 'I hope the mechanism of the six-party talks will be an important platform for the realisation of the Korean peninsula's nuclearisation,' Kim said. The arrival of Tang, a state councillor and former foreign minister, in Pyongyang came just days after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Beijing. His visit is seen as part of a diplomatic drive to prepare for Pyongyang's return to the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program in the week beginning July 25. China is North Korea's closest ally and aid provider and has hosted three previous rounds of talks that comprise the US, the North and South Korea, Japan, Russia and China. The last round was held in June 2004. Since then they have been stalled, with Pyongyang accusing Washington of a 'hostile policy' aimed at regime change in North Korea. But in a surprise decision it agreed on Saturday to return to the negotiating table, although both the US and China have warned it is 'only the first step'. ---- Alexander Alexeyev: Official sets out Russian points ahead of N. Korea talks MOSCOW. July 13, 2005 (Interfax) http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/exclusive/29.html?mode=9&title_style=exclus&others=2&id_issue=11336296 Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alexeyev, in an interview with Interfax on Wednesday, set out some of his nation's points in connection with the upcoming round of six-nation talks on the North Korean nuclear problem. Last weekend, North Korea agreed to the resumption of the six-party negotiations during the week starting with July 25. The talks, which bring together North and South Korea, Russia, the United States, China, and Japan, have been stalled since summer 2004. After the long hiatus, "it would be too optimistic to expect any radical breakthrough in the course of the upcoming round," Alexeyev said. "Naturally, the shared understanding of the ultimate goal of the settlement of this problem should be confirmed," he said. Russia's position "on the whole remains unchanged - we stand for a Korean peninsula without nuclear weapons," he said. "The package approach proposed by Russia a while ago has not lost any of its importance," he said. Many elements of this approach coincide with proposals by other parties to the talks, and "with some modification, may be used in working out joint agreements," he said. "As for our specific initiatives for the fourth round, we wouldn't like to disclose our negotiating position now," Alexeyev said. However, Russia is against a Japanese proposal demanding that the repatriation of its citizens who were kidnapped by North Korea in the 1970s and '80s be put on the agenda of the talks. "We believe that issues related to the goal of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula should remain the main subject of the six-party negotiations," Alexeyev said. "As for other concerns of the participants, including humanitarian issues, they should be dealt with on a bilateral basis," he said. Japan accuses North Korea of abducting 11 of its citizens. Tokyo says North Korean security services used them to teach the Japanese language and customs to spies. Pyongyang initially denied the kidnappings, but during a visit to North Korea by Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi in September 2002, its leader Kim Jong Il officially apologized for the abductions. The kidnappings have been the main obstacle to the normalization of bilateral relations. Tokyo has already raised its demand for the captives' repatriation during the six-nation talks. Alexeyev also said the solution of the North Korean nuclear dispute might revive a suspended project to combine the railway networks of North and South Korea and link them with Russia. "At present, negotiations on implementation of the project to link the Trans-Korean Mainline and subsequently join it to the Trans-Siberian railroad are suspended, although this project has lost none of its importance," he said. Alexeyev was also asked whether Russia might propose resuscitating a project to build light water nuclear reactors in North Korea. The project "was developed without Russian participation and also reached its current state without Russian participation," Alexeyev said. "So it would hardly be proper on our part to propose reanimating it - that is the responsibility of its participants," he said. "As for possible energy assistance to [North Korea], Russia is ready to explore opportunities for getting involved in this process together with the other parties," Alexeyev said. ---- Russia: North Korea needs security guarantees 19:36 2005-07-13 Pravda http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/07/13/60586.html As the U.S. is trying to affect North Korea by tough talk, Russia strives to provide that all the parties in the upcoming negotiations on Pyongyang’s nuclear program be equal in rights. Only this can guarantee progress in negotiations, Russia believes. A top Russian diplomat said Wednesday that he expected progress in the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program this month. "We fully expect a degree of progress and a step forward, compared to the agreements reached in previous meetings," Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alexeyev told the Interfax news agency in an interview. In separate comments, Alexeyev said that Russia had argued for offering security guarantees to the isolated regime in Pyongyang to persuade it to give up its nuclear weapons program, says the AP. "We consider the provision of security guarantees an important part of resolving the nuclear issue. We are ready to participate in providing such guarantees, on a bilateral and multilateral basis," ITAR-Tass quoted him as saying. "We believe the main topic for the six-party talks should remain the resolution of questions linked to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula," Alexeyev said. "As far as the concerns of other participants, including humanitarian issues, in our view these should be dealt with on a bilateral basis." Talking about "humanitarian issues," Alexander Alexeyev meant Japan’s intention to use the six-party talks to resolve the cases of Japanese kidnapped decades ago by North Korean agents. North Korea announced on Saturday that it would end a yearlong boycott and return to the six-party nuclear negotiations, which involve South Korea, China, Japan, the United States and Russia. The new round will open in Beijing during the week of July 25. On Monday North Korea once again declared it would not need nuclear weapons if the U.S. didn’t threaten it. But the U.S. seems not to hear the claim: yesterday U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States wanted "a strategic decision on the part of the North that they are indeed ready to give up their nuclear weapons program." -------- russia Moscow defends plans to accept nuclear waste Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:45 PM ET (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050713/sc_afp/russianucleariaeaenvironment_050713164517%3b_ylt=A9FJqYjYuNVCJjMBLgrPOrgF%3b_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050713160755.0g2a1t64.html MOSCOW - Russia defended plans to accept nuclear waste from other countries under international monitoring, despite protests from environmental groups. Russia's top nuclear official said that Moscow was considering participating in an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) project under which up to seven countries would store much of the world's nuclear waste. "We are currently studying the project," Alexander Rumyantsev, the head of Russia's atomic energy agency, was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency. Rumyantsev spoke at the start of a nuclear conference in the Russian capital. The deputy head of the IAEA, Yury Sokolov, said international centres for nuclear waste were needed because "national programmes for treatment and burial ... are not an efficient way of resolving the problem of waste." But the international environmental watchdog group Greenpeace denounced the plans. Outside the conference building, a Greenpeace activist hung a placard saying "Here They Sell Our Future" on a statue and pasted a radiation sign on the statue's pedestal. "Russian laws currently forbid the definitive burial of radioactive waste," Vladimir Churov from Greenpeace's Russia office told AFP, explaining that the law authorises only the temporary stocking of nuclear waste to be recycled. "That's why the Russian atomic energy agency is appealing to the IAEA as a way of giving legitimacy to international burial zones on Russian territory under the control of the United Nations," Churov explained. Russia is already importing some 100 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel from Ukraine, Bulgaria and Hungary under Soviet-era contracts signed before legislation on nuclear waste imports was changed in 2001, Churov said. The Russian energy ministry estimated in 2001 that the country's budget could earn up to 20 billion dollars (16 billion euros) over 10 years from the project, according to the Vedomosti business daily. ---- Russia to supply Chinese power station with nuclear fuel MOSCOW (AFP) Jul 13, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050713161655.yiey169q.html Russia is to supply a Chinese nuclear reactor with fuel starting in August, the head of the Russian atomic energy agency said Wednesday. Alexander Rumiantsev told the Itar-Tass news agency the fuel, which is already in China, will be delivered to the Tianwan power plant, a Russian-built facility in the eastern Chinese province of Jiangsu, next month. Work on the plant was now going ahead on schedule, he said, after a delay in activating the reactor, which should have become operational in 2004. Rumiantsev added that the plant should enter service this October. Russia began the project in October 1999. -------- space Weapons in space put the world at risk By WILLIAM D. HARTUNG GUEST COLUMNIST Wednesday, July 13, 2005 Seattle Post Intelligencer http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/232239_spaceweapons13.html Within the next few weeks, President Bush is expected to release his administration's new national space policy. The most crucial aspect of the plan will be whether it endorses placing weapons in space. There have been a series of reports since 2001 that essentially advocate deploying space weapons. The Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, initially chaired by Donald Rumsfeld, argued that the United States must take steps to avoid a "space Pearl Harbor." The Rumsfeld report said there is no current bar to "placing or using weapons in space, applying force from space to Earth, or conducting military operations in and through space." Not so coincidentally, seven of the 13 members of the Rumsfeld space commission had ties to aerospace companies that could stand to gain from the launching of a major space weapons program. But just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do it. For years space has served as a sanctuary where nations cooperate rather than confront one another. Satellites save lives and support our economy by predicting the weather, helping first responders provide emergency assistance, facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid in cases of natural disaster and by making cell phones, pagers and modern financial transactions possible. A weapons-free space environment also allows the United States to maintain its military superiority by supporting state-of-the-art reconnaissance, communications and targeting capabilities. Placing weapons in space that can shoot down another nation's satellites will encourage them to respond in kind, putting U.S. satellites at risk. Despite the benefits of a relatively benign space environment, there are voices within the Pentagon and military bureaucracies who argue that putting weapons in space is inevitable. In a U.S. Air Force document on "counterspace operations," Peter B. Teets, then assistant secretary of the Air Force -- and formerly COO of Lockheed Martin, a major military and space contractor -- argued that "controlling the high ground of space ... will require us to think about denying the high ground to our adversaries. We are paving the path to 21st century warfare now." Research has already begun on a number of space weapons, including the XSS-10 and XSS-11 Experimental Spacecraft Systems, microsatellites that can surround other satellites and photograph, jam or collide with them; the Near Field Infrared Experiment, a program aimed at testing the ability to destroy targets in orbit; and the Microsatellite Propulsion Experiment, which plans to launch maneuverable kill vehicles that are perfect for taking out satellites. There are also plans afoot to develop Hypervelocity Rod Bundles, frequently called "Rods from God," designed to drop from space and hit targets on Earth. In addition to the threats to U.S. security and our economy from sparking an arms race in space, the whole process would be extremely costly. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, launching an adequate number of Space-Based Interceptors to achieve total global coverage in a missile defense role could cost up to $60 billion over a decade's time. Space-Based Interceptors can also be adapted to work as anti-satellite weapons, although the numbers needed to reach an initial capability would be much smaller. And a Council on Foreign Relations study group estimates that placing just 40 rods in space for the "Rods from God" program would cost more than $8 billion. Given all the other space weapons projects on the drawing board, a concerted effort to weaponize space could eventually exceed the $100 billion-plus already spent on the missile defense program, which has been plagued by delays and technical difficulties from its inception. Witness the fact that in the last two major missile defense tests, the interceptor missile did not even make it out of its silo. Launching and maintaining hundreds or thousands of weapons in the harsh environment of space would pose its own technical obstacles, some of which may not be readily overcome. The better way to go would be to act now to establish some rules of the road for space-faring nations. The Henry L. Stimson Center has developed a model code of conduct for space that includes no flight-testing or deployment of space weapons, minimizing space debris that can destroy satellites and cooperating on space traffic management. The time to act on these ideas is now, while the United States still maintains unparalleled dominance in space. William D. Hartung is a senior research fellow at the World Policy Institute at the New School in New York City. -------- u.n. IAEA Seeks to Lessen Risk of Terror, Proliferation UN Atomic Watchdog Seeks to Lessen Risks of Nuclear Terrorism, Proliferation New York, Jul 13 2005 10:00AM Press Release: United Nations http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0507/S00255.htm In a bid to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists and to pre-empt weapons proliferation, the United Nations atomic watchdog agency joined major national players today at a three-day meeting in Moscow aimed at strengthening safeguards over the civilian use of nuclear energy. “The Agency is seeking to promote enhanced controls over sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, in particular uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing technology,” UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Deputy Director General for Nuclear Energy Yuri Sokolov told the opening session of the conference attended by representatives from Russia, the United States, France and other countries. “The IAEA is addressing the challenges through implementing strengthened safeguards and promoting assurances of supply of nuclear fuel cycle services together with assurances of non-proliferation,” he added, noting that more countries are showing interest in applying the technology safely for electricity production. The conference, organized by the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) with IAEA cooperation, follows an IAEA-commissioned Expert Group´s report on multilateral nuclear approaches (MNA) to the issue in February. The study called for multilateral control of the world’s civil nuclear fuel cycle, citing threats arising “from burgeoning and alarmingly well-organized nuclear supply networks, and from the increasing risk of acquisition of nuclear or other radioactive materials by terrorist and other non-State entities.” “Clear formulation of MNA proposals ... would strengthen confidence between interested participants and could promote the creation of a reliable system of guaranteed nuclear fuel cycle services,” Mr. Sokolov said. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei told the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in May that better control was needed over proliferation-sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle involving uranium enrichment and plutonium separation. “As experience has shown, effective control of nuclear materials is the ‘choke point’ to preventing nuclear weapons development,” he said. “Without question, improving control over facilities capable of producing weapon-usable material will go a long way towards establishing a better margin of security. “We should be clear: there is no incompatibility between tightening controls over the nuclear fuel cycle and expanding the use of peaceful nuclear technology. In fact, by reducing the risks of proliferation, we could pave the way for more widespread use of peaceful nuclear applications.” ---- 130 new nuclear power plants to be built within 15 years - IAEA 13:55 (RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/russia/20050713/40899914.html MOSCOW, July 13 - About 130 new nuclear power plants may be built in the world in the next 15 years, a deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency said at an international conference in Moscow Wednesday. Yury Sokolov told the conference, Multilateral Technical and Organizational Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle to Strengthen the Non-Proliferation Regime, that 440 nuclear power plants produced 16% of the world's electricity. "Their capacity may increase to 427-430 gigawatts in the next 20 years," he added. Sokolov said the IAEA was increasing control over uranium enrichment technologies and fuel use. "This is a matter of serious concern for the IAEA," he said. The official said a series of measures had to be taken in this sphere. In particular, he highlighted efforts to limit access to materials that may be used to produce nuclear weapons at civil nuclear facilities; to ensure that new nuclear materials are only produced at IAEA-controlled facilities; and to support for the design of energy systems that cannot be used for military purposes. "Today we are facing a dilemma - how to ensure mankind's stable development and resolve the energy problem," Sokolov said. Nuclear power may help resolve the problem of energy resources, he added. -------- u.s. nuc weapons Nuclear Weapons Expert Backs Reliability of Disputed Warhead By WILLIAM J. BROAD July 13, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/science/13nuke.html?pagewanted=print Joining a debate over the reliability of the W-76, a top American warhead, a nuclear arms expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has concluded that at worst, 70 percent of those in the nuclear arsenal would explode as designed. "No matter how cautious the assessment, the W-76 remains a reliable component of the U.S. nuclear deterrent," the scientist, Geoffrey E. Forden, wrote in the July issue of Jane's Intelligence Review. Dr. Forden based his estimate on an investigation of the likely number of classified nuclear tests the warhead underwent during its development and on a statistical analysis of that experimental series. He has submitted a similar but more detailed study to Science and Global Security, a journal edited at Princeton. The W-76, a centerpiece of the nation's nuclear arsenal, was designed by the Los Alamos weapons laboratory in the early 1970's and is now carried aboard submarines that prowl the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Federal officials have strongly denied that it has any problems that would cause it to explode with less force than intended. But a secret debate over its reliability, led by Richard L. Morse, a physicist and former Los Alamos official, recently burst into public view. The critics argue that the warhead has a fundamental design flaw that makes it highly unreliable and, if not a complete dud, likely to explode with a force so reduced as to compromise its effectiveness. John D. Immele, a senior Los Alamos weapons official, said in a recent interview that Dr. Morse's initial criticism had been deemed potentially credible and had been carefully weighed before being rebutted. The W-76, Dr. Immele said, "had an extreme test record that showed this was not a concern." Dr. Immele declined to discuss the details of the weapon's testing - arguably the sine qua non of weapons reliability. He said the federal government kept such information secret. By contrast, Dr. Forden, the M.I.T. physicist, analyzed public information about the weapon's development to deduce the details of its underground nuclear detonations. In his Jane's article, he said that the weapon had apparently undergone eight tests and that one of them "produced a substantially lower yield than expected." Even so, he wrote, a statistical analysis of the test series finds that "at the very least, 70 percent of the W-76's should detonate as planned." "This," he added, "is a worst-case scenario." By another statistical measure, Dr. Forden said, 95 percent of the nation's W-76 warheads should explode with at least 60 percent of their intended force. And that reduction in strength, he said, would have little effect on the weapon's military usefulness, even for destroying an enemy's missile silos. The reliability of the W-76, he concluded, "is great enough to retain confidence in this important component of the U.S. nuclear deterrent." -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- missouri Nuclear power energized for revival (Missouri) By KRIS HILGEDICK Jefferson City MO News Tribune July 13, 2005 http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2005/07/13/news_local/0713050006.txt The Callaway Nuclear Plant has stiffened security greatly since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. A concrete barrier has been put in place all around the perimeter. More fences have been installed, along with razor wire around several areas. (Julie Smith/News Tribune photo) After nearly two decades of dormancy, nuclear power is again being viewed as a credible option for baseload electrical generation, an Ameren official said Tuesday. Two factors are pushing the company in that direction: the exorbitant expense and scarce supply of natural gas and air pollution problems incurred by coal. Ameren Senior Vice President Chuck Naslund added that three utility consortiums are working nationwide to select new plant sites. He did not say if Missouri is being considered as a potential site. "We're excited. A lot of work has been done to get the next generation of plants ready to go for the U.S.," he said. Completed in 1984, the Callaway Nuclear Power Plant near Fulton provides 14 percent of the electrical needs for the corporation. One of nuclear power's attractions is the relatively inexpensive cost of the fuel. At $4 to $4.50 per megawatt hour of generation, nuclear fuel is far less expensive than natural gas combustion turbines, whose costs compare at $65 to $70 per megawatt hour. (Coal weighs in at about $10 to $14 per megawatt hour.) However, the high costs of maintaining, operating and keeping a nuclear plant secure must also be weighed in the decision-making. Naslund believes the nation's shallow gas wells are tapped out and deep Gulf wells are harder to access. "The outlook for natural gas in the future is pretty grim," he said. Naslund said technical issues -- sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide -- also arise from the costs of coal production. "How do we clean up the air that we send out of our stacks?" he asked. "Being a nuclear guy, I'm a firm believer the best thing for our country is to build next-generation nuclear power plants." Naslund said three corporations -- General Electric, Westinghouse and Framatome, a French corporation -- have developed plant designs certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The next generation of plants rely on a simplified design to deliver water to cool the reactor and dissipate heat. These "passive plants" use elevated tanks and gravity drainage to deliver water, as opposed to the complex system of pumps in use at the Callaway plant today. "It makes the plant much more simple to design, easier to maintain and hopefully cheaper than the first generation plants," he said. Although several natural gas peaking plants have been built recently, it's been 21 years since Ameren constructed a "baseload" plant -- one capable of handling the everyday electric needs of the corporation's two-state service area. Currently, the plant is operating under a 40-year-license, one that will take it through 2024. However, the Callaway Plant is gearing up for a major 70-day shutdown and massive overhaul this fall. At that point, company officials expect Ameren will ask the NRC to extend the life of the plant, as many other facilities have done. He said cost-wise, it will take between $1.5 and $2 billion to construct either a coal plant or a nuclear plant. "There's a lot of heavy capital in our industry that will take place in the next five years," he said. ---- Need for nuclear power not stymied by security demands Callaway Nuclear Plant opened its doors to the press on Tuesday, the first media hosted since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Officials with plant owner AmerenUE led the media representatives through the plant. (Fulton Sun/Colin E. Suchland photo) By COLIN E. SUCHLAND The Fulton, MO, Sun Wednesday, Jul 13, 2005 - 04:18:08 am CDT http://www.fultonsun.com/articles/2005/07/13/news/171news11.txt REFORM, Mo. - In the years since the Sept. 11 terrorists attacks AmerenUE has borne sizable expense to better safeguard Callaway Nuclear Plant. Still, officials Tuesday said the company remains confident in the facility, its future and the future of nuclear electrical production on the national stage. For the first time in several years, the plant hosted a full-fledged media tour Tuesday - though individual visits were permitted on select occasions in the last two years. "Since 9-11 the plant has been pretty much locked down," said Chuck Naslund, AmerenUE's chief nuclear officer. The past four years have been marked by $25 million in capital expenses targeting security needs. Most were made specifically to address mandates from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, officials said. "Once we understand what we have to protect against, we can design a strategy," said Luke Graessle, the plant's superintendent of protective services. Unable to detail some of the safeguards now in place, Graessle did note additional fences, a concrete vehicle barrier and security gun positions as some of the changes made since Sept. 11. The media's tour of Callaway Nuclear Plant on Tuesday included this glimpse of the facility's generator - the unit that turns mechanical energy into electricity. (Fulton Sun/Colin E. Suchland photo) Training of the security force also is more strenuous. "Every five weeks, every security officer goes through some form of retraining related to his job," Graessle said, and "every crew has to defend the plant against mock terrorists annually." The superintendent added that CNP passed a graded force-on-force exercise in May with no concerns cited by federal overseers. Naslund said that manpower and capital costs - particularly those related to security - far outweigh the price of actually producing power at the plant. Nuclear power costs only about $4 dollars per megawatt/hour to generate, but overall expenses push that figure to about $15, a price comparable to that at coal-fired generating stations. Naslund said the "next generation" of nuclear plants are on the horizon and their efficiency gives hope to the future of nuclear power. President Bush also recently voiced his support for new nuclear plants. "Nuclear power is on a comeback in the United States," Naslund told reporters Tuesday. The Callaway station supplies only about 14 percent of power generated in the AmerenUE system, a network that has "maxed out" its capacity, Naslund said. "Ameren will have to start looking seriously at building a new baseload (plant)," he continued. The company is moving to secure Callaway Nuclear Plant's future in a September maintenance outage, replacing steam generators and steam turbines. The project is expected to increase plant efficiency and overall electrical output. Under its current license, CNP may operate through 2024, and AmerenUE officials already have speculated that they will move for a license extension when the time is right. The facility employs about 1,000 people. -------- nevada DOE, Nevada attorneys spar over Yucca draft State wants access; Energy Department officials say document legally shielded By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU Wednesday, July 13, 2005 Las Vegas Review-Journal http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Jul-13-Wed-2005/news/26873916.html WASHINGTON -- Attorneys for Nevada and the Energy Department sparred Tuesday over the availability of a Yucca Mountain draft application, a 5,800-page packet that could provide early clues about the government's bid to license a nuclear waste site. The state wants to get access to the draft, which was completed in July 2004 and reflected in more than 70 chapters much of the government's research to establish a spent fuel repository 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Charles Fitzpatrick, an attorney for Nevada, said Tuesday the preliminary document would contain valuable information about how DOE was planning to design the repository and how it expected to address key radiation protection standards before they were thrown out by a federal court last summer. "It is the most desirable document for Nevada and others to see to begin work on contentions," Fitzpatrick said. "We are champing at the bit to see it." But during three hours of arguments before a three-judge administrative panel Tuesday, Energy Department lawyer Michael Shebelskie said the draft application was a legally shielded document and DOE is not required to hand it over. Shebelskie said the year-old document was "stale," and would not reflect the department's thinking on key points when it finalizes its license application. That date has not yet been set. The draft license application has become the latest flash point in the legal fight between the state and the federal government over Yucca Mountain. Fitzpatrick said access to the draft would allow the state to get a head start on preparing detailed legal objections to be aired during Nuclear Regulatory Commission license hearings for the proposed repository. Fitzpatrick said Nevada experts want to compare the draft application with the final version, looking for changes they could probe during licensing hearings. "The differences would reveal the differences that scientists had in the program, or that the scientists had with the politicians, and how they were resolved," he said. The three-judge panel, assembled by the NRC to resolve early disputes over Yucca licensing, is expected to rule in the coming weeks. At least one of the judges made clear he questioned DOE's stance. In the interest of avoiding licensing delays, Judge Alan Rosenthal said the Energy Department should consider sharing the document. Otherwise, Nevada would have little time to prepare its objections and would likely ask the NRC for time extensions, he said. "What practical advantage other than litigation strategy is there in not giving them the document at this point?" Rosenthal said. "It would take a lot of wind out of (Nevada) sails to give them the application." ---- Yucca lobbyists on way to Nye County MEETINGS SLATED FOR JULY 27-29 DESIGNED TO BEGIN 'BUILDING TIES' WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY STEVE TETREAULT Pahrump Valley Times WASHINGTON BUREAU July 13, 2005 http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2005/07/13/news/ymp.html WASHINGTON - Leaders of a national lobbying group that formed this spring to promote Yucca Mountain plan to visit Nye County this month to begin building ties in Nevada, an organizer said. Meetings tentatively set for July 27-29 in Pahrump illustrates a growing relationship between rural Nevadans and interests that support the proposed nuclear waste repository. The Yucca Mountain Task Force was formed in April to revive political support in Congress and in various states for the Energy Department effort, which has been hit by delays. The task force consists of state utility regulators and nuclear industry executives, including the Nuclear Energy Institute trade association. Five task force members plan to meet with Nye County officials, according to organizer David Blee. He is executive director of the U.S. Transport Council, an organization of nuclear waste shipping firms and equipment manufacturers that plan to seek Yucca contracts. The visitors also are scheduled to tour Yucca Mountain, possibly to be joined by local government representatives, according to Blee and a Nye County spokesman. Blee said the purpose "is to open up a dialogue between the task force and county leaders who have expressed support for the project, in terms of a coalition." Officials from neighboring Lincoln and Esmeralda counties also might be invited, he said. Nye County leaders welcomed the effort, according to Dave Swanson, interim director of Nye County's nuclear waste repository office. Two county commissioners, Candice Trummell and Gary Hollis, probably will take part in the session, Swanson said. "The folks (Blee) would be bringing out here, it sounds like we could learn something from them," Swanson said. "The more we can learn about issues associated with the repository, pro or con, the better we will be in our decision-making process." State and Clark County leaders have adopted a hard-line stance on Yucca Mountain, maintaining that a nuclear waste repository would be flawed and unsafe. They argue that there is a good chance the project can be killed in the courts or by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. While there is some Yucca Mountain opposition in rural Nevada, there also are some county leaders who say that a nuclear waste site might become a reality whether they like it or not, and that they need to prepare for the possibility by recruiting jobs and other economic benefits associated with the project. "The attitude among folks is that the repository is probably inevitable, and it seems that way," Swanson said from Nye County, where Yucca Mountain is located. "The Department of Energy is anxious to work with the county and make it a success, and I truly believe that." Bob Loux, coordinator of the state's official opposition to Yucca Mountain, said local county officials "can talk to who they want," but the visitors are selling a bad idea. "They are trying to get the local governments pumped up on this thing," said Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. "They are trying to show the project is not dead, that it really is moving." Despite Yucca Mountain support from some rural leaders," there still is a good deal of opposition" in those counties, Loux said. NEI already has a consultant in Nevada, former governor Robert List. Additionally, Blee and other nuclear waste transportation executives took part in a June 9 workshop in Pahrump before the Central Nevada Community Protection Working Group, a forum for rural leaders to work on repository issues. ---- House member plans measure to speed opening Nevada nuclear dump July 13, 2005 - 5:46 p.m. Associated Press http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/gen/ap/NV_Yucca_Mountain_Congress.html LAS VEGAS — A key House lawmaker said he plans to introduce a comprehensive nuclear waste bill in the fall that could speed the opening of a national radioactive waste repository in Nevada. House Energy Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, told a Las Vegas newspaper for Wednesday's editions that his measure could mandate a 10,000-year radiation standard for the Yucca Mountain project. Barton said he may also include a plan for storing radioactive waste at temporary storage sites while Yucca Mountain is being developed and give the Energy Department more access to funds outside the spending constraints of the annual congressional budget. All three of the proposals have been floated previously by pro-Yucca lawmakers, with limited success. They have drawn strong opposition from Nevada lawmakers, who said they would again oppose Barton's proposals. Any new legislation designed to speed Yucca would be "dead on arrival as far as we're concerned," said Jack Finn, spokesman for Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. Since 1987, the nation's nuclear waste policy has focused on developing an underground repository at Yucca Mountain. President Bush and Congress approved the site in 2002. The program has been slowed in recent months by budget shortfalls, controversy about scientific research at the site and a crucial court ruling last year on the radiation standard. The proposal allowing Congress to set the radiation rule would essentially negate the July 2004 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It threw out the 10,000-year standard set by the Environmental Protection Agency, forcing the Energy Department to postpone plans seeking a license to operate the repository. The EPA is expected to set a new standard sometime this year. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said there was a possibility the GOP-controlled Congress could embrace the proposals. But Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said the House Budget Committee has no appetite for giving the Energy Department more control of the national nuclear waste fund. "It takes away our congressional oversight of taxpayer-dollar expenditures, which no one believes is a good idea," he said. Nuclear industry leaders have said the proposal does not strip away oversight, just artificial annual budget caps. Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., said changing Yucca funding rules would be a "major step in the wrong direction," at a time when "red flags" have been raised about Yucca's viability as a repository site. Porter is leading a House investigation into e-mails suggesting some quality assurance documents relating to the project were falsified. The Yucca site is expected to entomb 77,000 tons of high-level commercial, military and industrial radioactive waste now stored at sites in 39 states. Project planners have pushed back the target for opening the repository from 2010 to 2012 or later. ---- Nuclear fuel reprocessing plan opposed Scientist says increasing Yucca Mountain storage would cost less By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU Wednesday, July 13, 2005 Las Vegas Review-Journal http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Jul-13-Wed-2005/news/26874121.html WASHINGTON -- Experts on Tuesday threw more cold water on desires by Congress to expedite nuclear fuel reprocessing, with one saying it might be just as economical to carve more burial space within Yucca Mountain as to deploy costly technology to manage radioactive waste. Lawmakers looking to secure a growing role for nuclear energy have focused on reprocessing technologies that hold promise to reduce volumes of fuel waste and its radioactivity. A bill passed by the House earlier this year directs the Energy Department to settle on a specific reprocessing strategy by 2007. But at the second hearing in a month, science and industry experts warned members of a House subcommittee that reprocessing was not yet positioned for fast leaps forward. Richard Lester, a nuclear science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the expense of reprocessed fuel would triple the fuel costs of a nuclear plant and increase the cost of generating electricity by about 20 percent. Uranium fuel delivered to power plants today for about $43 a kilogram would have to increase to almost $400 per kilogram for reprocessing to become competitive, Lester said. An MIT study concluded that reprocessing "is not an attractive option for nuclear energy for at least the next 50 years," Lester said. Reprocessing in a new U.S. plant would cost more than $2,000 per kilogram, said Steve Fetter, dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland. Fetters said there was no economic downside for the government to delay a commitment to reprocessing. "I would think one could easily expand Yucca Mountain or open a new facility for the same fee," Fetters said. The proposed repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada would be limited by law to holding 77,000 tons of nuclear waste. But scientists say the repository could be expanded to hold 120,000 tons or more. The nuclear energy industry would resist actions that could raise costs to electricity consumers, said Marvin Fertel, senior vice president of the Nuclear Energy Institute. "The consensus in the nuclear energy industry is that nuclear fuel costs should be kept as low as possible," Fertel said. He said developing nuclear fuel reprocessing plants would be a complex and lengthy undertaking. "You're into a couple of decades to employ the facilities you want, even if the economics are what you want." Subcommittee chairwoman Judy Biggert, R-Ill., said she would not rule out federal subsidies for reprocessing. She pointed to tax credits that are offered to developers of wind and solar power. "Let's face it, the federal government does a lot that isn't economical, often because doing so is in the best interest of the nation for other reasons," Biggert said. -------- new jersey Sen. Corzine Offers Bill on Oyster Creek Jul 13, 2005 2:15 pm US/Eastern http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_194142818.html After being criticized for staying silent on what should happen to New Jersey's Oyster Creek nuclear power plant, Sen. Jon Corzine has introduced a bill that would require an independent review of the facility before it could receive a renewed license to operate. Rep. James Saxton, R-Mount Holly, in February introduced a similar bill about the plant, one of the country's oldest, and was supported by Rep. Christopher Smith, R-Robbinsville. The House has not acted upon the measure. "While the Oyster Creek nuclear plant is an important source of energy and jobs for our state, there are serious environmental, health and safety concerns to be taken into account before the plant is relicensed," the senator said in a news release. Corzine, the Democratic candidate in the state's gubernatorial race, introduced his bill on Tuesday. Corzine's bill would require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to wait until the National Academy of Sciences did an assessment of Oyster Creek's safety performance before the NRC relicenses the plant, which would allow it to stay open for an additional 20 years. Exelon Corp. and its subsidiary, AmerGen Energy Co., operate the plant. AmerGen has to submit a new application by July 29. Corzine, along with other federal lawmakers, has been criticized by state environmental groups for not speaking out sooner on whether Oyster Creek should be shut down. Environmental groups say the plant is located in one of the fastest growing areas in the state and has one of the highest radioactive air iodine emissions in the country. Exelon officials say the plant is safe and has been upgraded and repaired. Oyster Creek, located in Lacey Township, was shut down in late May because of problems with the electricity coming into the plant. It was back at 100 percent power within a few days. Oyster Creek was first licensed in 1969, and generates 663 megawatts of power. -------- new york West Valley Nuclear Services Layoffs July 13, 2005, 01:00 PM http://www.wivb.com/Global/story.asp?S=3589757 (West Valley, NY, July 13, 2005) - - West Valley Nuclear Services has laid off another 62 employees. Forty-one of the affected employees accepted buy-outs, 23 others took transfers to other locations with West Valley Nuclear Services' parent company. The trims are part of a long term plan to phase out operations at the plant that's been processing nuclear waste for three decades. 352 employees remain. -------- MILITARY -------- biological weapons How the U.S. Government Exposed Thousands of Americans to Lethal Bacteria to Test Biological Warfare Wednesday, July 13th, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/13/1357237 The Homeland Security Department last month released what they said was nontoxic gas into New York's Grand Central Station to trace how chemicals might flow through the terminal in a terrorist attack. We speak with biological and chemical terrorism expert Leonard Cole, who asks what this "nontoxic gas" actually was. He wrote a book about how - in the 1950s and 1960s, U.S. government scientists ran a series of tests to determine how easy it would be to expose large numbers of people to a lethal bacteria. [includes rush transcript] In the aftermath of the London bombings, the U.S. Government raised the terrorist threat level to Orange, or "High." The alert was particularly applied to the nation's trains and subway systems. Although far less money has been spent on security measures for public transportation than for the airline industry, experts say subways and trains may be particularly vulnerable to chemical and biological attacks. Late last month, the Homeland Security Department released what they said was nontoxic gas into New York's Grand Central Station to trace how chemicals might flow through the terminal in a terrorist attack. But some government simulations of chemical and biological attacks in the past have been somewhat different. In the 1950s and sixties, scientists from the Fort Detrick biological weapons program ran a series of tests to determine how easy it would be to expose large numbers of people to a lethal bacteria. Containers of nontoxic bacteria were planted in the New York subway, bacteria was secretly pumped into the Pentagon ventilation system and clouds of bacteria were released in San Francisco. And germs that were meant to sicken but not kill humans were tested on conscientious objectors in the military. * Leonard Cole, an Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Rutgers-Newark in New Jersey. An expert in biological and chemical terrorism, Cole is also the author of "The Eleventh Plague, The Politics of Chemical and Biological Warfare," and "The Anthrax Letters: A Medical Detective Story." RUSH TRANSCRIPT This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, more... AMY GOODMAN: To talk about all this, we are joined by Leonard Cole, who has written a book about the subject. An expert in biological and chemical terrorism, his book is called, The Eleventh Plague: The Politics of Chemical and Biological Warfare. Welcome to Democracy Now! LEONARD COLE: Hi. AMY GOODMAN: It’s great to have you with us. In a few minutes, I want to go to your next book, which is something I think a lot of people have forgotten about, and that is The Anthrax Letters. That’s right. Who did it, we don't know. But first let's go to this story. LEONARD COLE: Sure. AMY GOODMAN: The Grand Central experiment or the test that was done just a few weeks ago, do you know anything about it? LEONARD COLE: Only what I saw in the newspaper that was reported just a few days back that a non-toxic gas was flowed through the Central -- Grand Central Terminal, and as you said, the purpose was to see what the air flow would be like, so that presumably we could institute some protections and defenses. What I found interesting was that while the newspaper article reported that the gas was non-toxic, that it was invisible, odorless, it did not name the gas, and that would be interesting for to us find out. AMY GOODMAN: Well, let's go to something we know more about, and that is a previous experiment in the New York subways. Can you talk about that in as much detail as you know? LEONARD COLE: Sure. AMY GOODMAN: When did it happen? LEONARD COLE: The test in the subways was in 1966, and it was part of an experimental program that lasted 20 years, beginning in 1949, ending only in 1969. During that period, the army acknowledged that some 239 vulnerability tests had been conducted in which large numbers of people, of human citizens of this country, were exposed. They emphasized that the materials that were used to simulate anthrax and other deadly organisms were harmless. But in my research, and in the work that was published in the book, it was very clear that some of the materials were not totally harmless, that when you expose a million or 2 or 3 million people to relatively harmless materials, you still have a certain segment of the population that would be at risk. AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about specifically what happened in the subway. LEONARD COLE: Sure. AMY GOODMAN: How many agents went underground? LEONARD COLE: When you use the word agent, it has a double meaning. Sometimes it means human beings who are actually conducting the experiments, sometimes – and the army refers to them, the test, the people actually refer to the organisms as agents that were released. So I’ll try to be careful. AMY GOODMAN: So how many agents released agents? LEONARD COLE: Well, we don't know how many individuals went down to release. There were probably somewhere, my guess is in the order of anywhere from a half dozen to a dozen. More importantly, the number of bacterial agents that were released ranged in the trillions. In fact, the way this was done was kind of bizarre, and yet interesting. A light bulb was filled with some 87 trillion organisms, something called bacillus subtilis. And this bacillus, this bacterium, and is common in nature. And as I said before, most people would not be affected. However some people in immune compromised situation, very old people, babies, they would be more susceptible. Trillions and trillions were released. Light bulbs -- AMY GOODMAN: When you say released, you’re talking light -- they're put into light bulbs? LEONARD COLE: They were placed in army laboratories in light bulbs and mixed with charcoal. The human agent would carry a paper bag containing some light bulbs filled with bacterium. AMY GOODMAN: Black light bulbs? LEONARD COLE: I don't know what the color of the light bulbs were. But he would walk down during peak traffic hours to various subway platforms. This was during in a six-day period in September of 1966. As the train would be coming into the station, he would take a light bulb out of the bag, drop it onto the tracks, and as the train entered, you would see a whoosh of darkened air, darkened clouds. The darkness came from charcoal that was a mixed with the bacteria, because the bacteria themselves were invisible. There were various detection devices set up around the subway system so one could then estimate how many bacteria had survived, and how many of them had concentrated in various areas. At the end of six days, as reports were written, the ultimate report said that if a -- as they said, a pathogenic organism were released, that more than half of the people who were riding the subways could have become deathly ill. AMY GOODMAN: Do we know about people who got sick? LEONARD COLE: In the course of research, some years after, when the public first learned about this, and in writing the book, I wrote to the New York City Subway System or the -- I guess it was the authority -- the Subway Authority and asked for absentee records, people who were not showing up for work, just to see how this was around those dates, and I got a short reply back saying, when I wrote to them -- it was in the early 1980s -- they said they don't have records that go back that far. AMY GOODMAN: Because we do know about what happened in the Bay Area, right, with the release of toxins. Can you talk about that? LEONARD COLE: Sure. This was perhaps the most dramatic and well-reported incident, which we learned about only decades after it was actually conducted. In 1950, another bacterium, and any doctors or microbiologists will recognize this immediately as not something that you should play around with, it was called serratia marcescens. These bacteria were released from the Bay of San Francisco, a boat was spraying trillions of these bacteria onshore. And this is very interesting, because in San Francisco in 1950, a major hospital, university hospital, Stanford University Hospital was located, and they had never recorded any infections from serratia marcescens. Unbeknown to the doctors or anybody in the hospital, the army released the bacteria. Three days later, a case of the serratia marcescens was discovered in the hospital. A dozen or so occurred in the subsequent months. One of the patients died of serratia infection. AMY GOODMAN: What does that mean? What happens to the person? LEONARD COLE: These bacteria colonized his heart valve. The bacteria can infect various organs of the body, particularly with weakened people. Now, a person who was in the hospital who had had surgery emerged, became infected, and he died. And what is fascinating is that when the public first learned about this test, mind you, the test occurred in 1950, there were news reports about the test for the first time in the year 1976 and ‘77. The grandson of the -- the grandson of the person who died, Edward Nevin, who died, the grandson is named Edward Nevin the third, was reading about this, as he was commuting from his home in Berkeley, California, to his law office in San Francisco. AMY GOODMAN: So he's on the BART, and he’s reading about these tests. LEONARD COLE: Exactly. And he's reading about it. And then he sees his grandfather's name mentioned as a person who died from this bacterial infection. And he said, ‘Oh, my goodness, that's my grandfather.’ Well, to cut through a couple of years following that, he instituted suit against the government. In 1981, there was a trial. The Nevin family sued the US government for these tests, and for the death of their grandparent, and it -- they lost the case, but in the course of the trial, he managed to get tons of material that was exposed for the first time, and the public learned about it, much of which I have reported in my own research and book. AMY GOODMAN: Professor Cole, do we have reason to be concerned that with heightened fear and concern about a biological attack that these kind of tests to see, for example, air flow, etc., will now continue today? LEONARD COLE: Oh, I think that there's no reason to think they won't continue. I mean, certainly, we have evidence by a news report that they were instituted in Grand Central Terminal. My guess is that that would not be the only location. On the other hand, in fairness, we do have to understand that we want to defend ourselves against the possible release of these materials. The question is how you do it, what the material is that you are using as a test agent. If we use anything like the bacteria that were used in the 50s and 60s, we're creating risk situations for millions of people. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Professor Leonard Cole. He teaches political science at Rutgers-Newark. His book is called The Eleventh Plague: The Politics of Biological and Chemical Warfare. You have also written The Anthrax Letters: A Medical Detective Story. We're talking about terrorist attacks right now. We know about September 11, we certainly know about Madrid, and what happened in London. Everyone was afraid when the anthrax letters targeted the National Enquirer and killed the post office workers, but seems to hardly ever have been raised. President Bush certainly hardly raises this. What do we know about who sent them soon after September 11? LEONARD COLE: Soon, indeed. The first postmarked letters that were later identified were September 18; exactly one week later, they had been sent out. We don't know who did it. When I say we, I mean, the public. The FBI has focused on the notion that it was probably a lone disaffected American domestic scientist who had access to these bacteria, highly refined virulent bacteria, dangerous bacteria, access to them in one of the laboratories in the US. There are a lot of things that have happened in retrospect that sound amazing. For example, it wasn't until two years ago or three years ago, actually, in the year 2001, that we even had regulations that required scientists who handle these virulent dangerous bacteria to report to the Centers for Disease Control that they have them in stock. But until now, or until that period, people had stocks of terribly dangerous materials in their laboratories, and nobody would necessarily know about them, except they themselves who had them there. And that was perfectly legal. So, at the time that these bacteria were released, there were possibilities for access, getting to these materials by a lot of people. So, we don't know who did it. It is -- I find it quite interesting that the notion that the bacteria were sent out exactly seven days, the first letters were sent out seven days after September 11, and then a whole bunch of other circumstantial dots, as I suggest, would suggest that maybe there was some, at least, awareness by whoever sent them out about September 11 in advance because to prepare this material, to find out who you want to send these poisoned letters to, to get them out and write the letter, and do it all in six days' time, while it's certainly physically possible, but it would be an awful stretch to think that it could be done easily. AMY GOODMAN: What is the profile the government has of who this person or people are? LEONARD COLE: Amazingly specific. And I can cut through by saying that the profile that they offered on the website, the FBI put on its site, ultimately closely fits somebody who was actually named in the year 2002 by then Attorney General John Ashcroft, as quote, “a person of interest.” The man's name is Steven Hatfill. Hatfill has never been charged. And when the press asked the Attorney General, ‘Well, is he a suspect?’ the Attorney General said, ‘No, no. He's just a person of interest.’ No other persons of interest were named, although ostensibly there were dozens who were being looked at. Hatfill, since his being named, lost his job, can't get a job anyplace and has sued the government for millions of dollars. And his case is still pending. AMY GOODMAN: Do you think if the person of interest had been a different ethnic background or religious background, that there would have been a great deal more of attention paid, media focusing on this issue? LEONARD COLE: There was a gentleman of Egyptian extract who worked at Fort Detrick, and he was also investigated. He was never named publicly, but the word got out through, I guess through the gossip mill at Fort Detrick and elsewhere that a man of Arab extract who said that he had been discriminated -- suffered discrimination there in any case ultimately was being investigated carefully. There were probably scores of scientists, scores of people who fit the profile, but the only one named, as I say, was Hatfill. AMY GOODMAN: And what is your conclusion? LEONARD COLE: I would -- my conclusion -- I don't mean to be glib or flip, I would just say that there's a very good chance that a year from now we will be asking the same question, what is my thought? I don't know who did it. I would say that all options are open. If the FBI has information more than has been released to the public, I think we ought to be hearing more about it. AMY GOODMAN: Leonard Cole, I want to thank you for being with us, Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Rutgers, Newark. Author of The Eleventh Plague: The Politics of Biological and Chemical Warfare and his latest book, The Anthrax Letters: A Medical Detective Story. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Corn Ethanol Takes More Energy Than It Makes BERKELEY, California, July 13, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2005/2005-07-13-01.asp Using ethanol as an additive to make gasoline burn cleaner does more harm than good to the environment, finds a new report by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley. The study concludes that the cumulative energy consumed in corn farming and ethanol production is six times greater than the power the ethanol provides in a car engine. The paper, published in the journal "Critical Reviews in Plant Science," comes as Congress debates a provision in the energy bill that would double the amount of ethanol to be used as a gasoline additive to five billion gallons a year by 2012. Ethanol is set to replace methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive that has been found to pollute groundwater. Some oil companies have already made the switch to ethanol. California legislators have opposed the ethanol mandate, saying the requirement to use ethanol would jack up prices at the pump in the state. "We're embarking on one of the most misguided public policy decisions to be made in recent history," said Tad Patzek, professor of geoengineering at UC Berkeley's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. "We are burning the same amount of fuel twice to drive a car once," said Patzek, who conducted the study with undergraduate students in his civil engineering course. Patzek and his students found that by the time ethanol is burned as a gasoline additive in our vehicles, the net energy lost is 65 percent, a figure that factors in the energy spent growing the corn and converting it into ethanol. They conducted the study over a period of four months, reviewing data from government agencies, industry figures and published research papers. "When you first consider ethanol, it feels like you're being progressive and environmentally friendly," said Jason Lee, an undergraduate at UC Berkeley who helped author the paper. "But, if you dig underneath, you find that it's really misleading. The amount of fuel and oil needed to use ethanol is greater than the value of energy ethanol provides. It's ridiculous to think it would decrease our dependence on oil." Scientists disagree on the amount of fossil fuel energy it takes to produce ethanol. Both sides of the ethanol debate have calculations to support their position. A study by U.S. Agriculture Department and Energy Department researchers issued last year shows a net energy gain. The study, led by Hosein Shapouri of the USDA's Office of the Chief Economist, was conducted to refute previous studies by Patzak and others that also found a net energy loss in producing ethanol from corn. Shapouri's team found that "corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy output/input ratio of 1.67." The Iowa Corn Promotion Board relies on the USDA study, saying, "Research indicates an approximate 38 percent gain in the overall corn-to-ethanol process and use of that ethanol for fuel." "Corn yields and processing technologies have improved significantly over the past 20 years and they continue to do so, making ethanol production less and less energy intensive," said the Board. Patzek said that studies showing energy gain do not take into account the amount of energy stored in the corn. "The energy stored in the corn is not free," he said. "To grow the corn, you've used up soil and water. We must also account for the disposal of waste water polluted by nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers, as well as by pesticides and herbicides." When calculating the net energy loss, Patzek and his students took into account the energy equivalent contained within one bushel of corn. According to the report, it takes a total of 0.87 gallons of gasoline equivalent to grow one bushel of corn, which itself contains 3.17 gallons of gasoline equivalent energy. That calculation includes the fossil energy expended from the use of fertilizer, pesticides, machinery, irrigation and other inputs in corn production. After the corn is produced, it then takes another 0.89 gallons of gasoline equivalent to ferment and distill one bushel of corn into 2.66 gallons of ethanol, Patzek's team calculates. In addition, ethanol does not pack as much energy as gasoline because of its lower heating value. The paper points out that the energy of 2.66 gallons of ethanol is equivalent to 1.74 gallons of gasoline. So, the energy input of 4.93 gallons of gasoline equivalent leads to an energy output of 1.74 gallons of gasoline equivalent, or a net energy loss of 65 percent. The report also says ethanol may contribute to increased pollution of groundwater if underground storage tanks leak. "Soil bacteria love ethanol," said Patzek. "If gasoline that contains ethanol leaks, the bacteria in the soil will preferentially metabolize the ethanol instead of the gasoline hydrocarbons. As a result, the subsurface plumes of gasoline will not be degraded and will spread farther out, potentially poisoning more wells." Because ethanol is also highly corrosive, it cannot be transported over the existing system of pipelines, said Patzek. Ethanol must therefore be transported by train or truck, adding to the final cost of the fuel, he said. "It makes more sense to produce reformulated gas without any oxygenates, but that is not the popular choice politically," said Patzek. "Additives are the easy way out for everybody concerned." David Morris of the Institute for Local Self Reliance, based in Minneapolis, is a critic of scientists who conclude that ethanol made from corn is an energy drain. Over the years more than 20 scientific studies have examined the question, says Morris. "Virtually all studies of ethanol before 1990 showed a net energy loss. Virtually all of the studies after 1990 show a net energy gain. This is because the ethanol industry, in terms of energy use per gallon of ethanol produced, has become much more efficient over the years, as has the farmer, in terms of energy use per bushel of corn grown." -------- ACTIVISTS Military investigating Arizona soldier in Iraq Billy House Republic Washington Bureau Jul. 13, 2005 12:00 AM Arizona Central http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0713soldier-arrest13.html WASHINGTON - An Arizona Army National Guardsman whose Web log comments have criticized the Iraq war and who has filed papers to run for the U.S. Senate seat held by Jon Kyl, is the subject of a military investigation in Iraq, the Army said Tuesday. What exactly Leonard A. Clark is being investigated for is unclear. Clark, 40, of Glendale, is a kindergarten teacher, activist and perennial candidate for public office, and holds the rank of specialist in Arizona's 860th Military Police Company. "Specialist Clark is under investigation, but not under arrest," confirmed Army Capt. Patricia Brewer, a spokeswoman with the military's combined press information office in Baghdad. She said no other details were available regarding Clark from the 42nd Military Police Brigade's Judge Advocate General's office. Campaigning for public office without permission from the secretary of defense while on active duty in the Armed Forces is a violation of Defense Department regulations. Clark and others in the 860th MP Company have been deployed in Iraq since March, and are not expected to return to the state until next March. Even so, on April 7, the Federal Election Commission officially received Clark's "statement of candidacy" to run next year for the Senate seat now held by Republican Kyl. In that filing by mail, Clark designates his principal campaign committee as "Arizonans for Leonard Clark." Clark's case also illustrates how the military is wrestling with an explosion of opinionated soldier Web logs or "blogs," and their content at a time when polls show rising public opposition to the war. A "blog" is a Web page maintained as a journal for personal comments. The military recently has adopted a rule requiring soldiers to register their blogs with their chain of command, and subject these sites to regular review. Clark has been critical in his posted blog comments of the Bush administration, saying he believes U.S. soldiers are being killed needlessly. "Fight non-violently for the just and righteous cause of Not One More American Soldier's Life Being Lost. N.O. M.A.S.!" he urged in a June 30 e-mail posting. Maj. Eileen Bienz, a spokeswoman with the state Army National Guard, said guard officials in Arizona have been advised that Clark is under investigation, but that no formal charges have been filed. However, Bienz noted that about one week ago she received "inquiries" from outside of Arizona about Clark's blog postings critical of the war. "His blogging activities were brought to my attention. So I made some inquiries asking, so what is the policy?" Bienz said. "I was told then that it (Clark's blogging) had been brought to the attention of his commander (in Iraq)." Bienz said she could not say whether the investigation in Iraq focuses on Clark's blogging or issues related to running for political office. Whatever the specific focus of the Army's investigation - and regardless of whether Clark intentionally may have instigated this controversy to gain more attention for himself - the intensity of the Internet chatter about his situation is giving him some national notice. For instance, the online magazine Daily Kos has been providing updates. Clark previously has run for the Arizona House of Representatives in 1998, 2002 and 2004, and for the state Senate in 2000. Clark, who since March has twice telephoned The Arizona Republic from Iraq to talk about his plans to run as a Democrat for U.S. Senate, could not be reached through his e-mail address this week. District 12 Democrats in Arizona, on their way into a meeting in Litchfield Park on Monday evening, declined to discuss Clark. Clark's wife, Marisela, said her husband called her Tuesday morning to say he "was not arrested anymore" and told her not to worry about him. "He sounded very different and very sad, but he said, 'I'm OK,' " she said. "But I am really afraid for him." She said he told her he was arrested for "having a big mouth about his politics." In a phone call to The Republic in early June, Clark declared, "If I come back alive, I will challenge him (Kyl)." He said then that he opposed the war, but felt he needed to serve out of duty to his country. Kevin Spidel of Litchfield Park, who says he is Clark's friend and who also is the national political director for Progressive Democrats of America, said he was abruptly advised by Clark in an e-mail on Monday that he'd been ordered by his commander not to publish any more comments on the Web. At the Pentagon, Army Lt. Col. Christopher Conway said Tuesday that he does not know about the specifics of Clark's case, but that the military is seeking to find "a balance" between the free-speech rights of service members and the release of information on the Internet that could raise military security and operational concerns. Spidel said Clark's blog never revealed information that would jeopardize himself or his fellow soldiers. Reporter Rachel Stults contributed to this article. ---- Museum fund-raiser energizes both sides of nuclear debate By Megan Arredondo Albuquerque Tribune Reporter July 13, 2005 http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_local/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19858_3923519,00.html If Ben Diven ever wanted to write a book about his experience with the Manhattan Project, he could literally start it with, "It was a dark and stormy night." Diven, 86, was one of several scientists who spent hours testing the first atomic bomb 60 years ago this week. "The day we shot (the bomb), the weather was bad. There was thunder and lightning going on," the Los Alamos man recalled. Sixty years later, Diven is still not sure whether the atomic bomb was a change for the good or the bad. NUCLEAR HAPPENINGS "Blast from the Past" Where: National Atomic Museum. When: 5 to 9 p.m. Friday and 6 a.m. Saturday. What: Fund-raiser commemorating the 60th anniversary of the first test of the atomic bomb. The event features dinner, fashion show and panel discussion Friday. Tour of the Trinity site Saturday, followed by lunch at the Owl Cafe. Price: $125. Phone: 242-6083. "Mightier Than the Sword: Writers Address the Nuclear Age" Where: Lobo Theater, 3013 Central Ave. N.E. When: 7 to 9 p.m. Saturday. What: Poetry reading featuring several writers, followed by open mike session. Price: $10. Advance tickets available at Bookworks, Page One Books, the Book Stop or online at www.lasg.org. Phone: 265-1200. The Trinity Site Where: White Sands Missile Range. When: 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Saturday. What: Special opening of the site where the first atomic bomb exploded 60 years ago. The site is usually open only on the first Saturday of April and October. Price: Free; no reservations required. Phone: (505) 678-1134. On Friday, that debate will be brought to the forefront at a fund-raiser hosted by the National Atomic Museum, which will be attended by people who worked on the Manhattan Project and members of the Los Alamos Study Group - an organization opposed to nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. With Saturday marking the 60th anniversary of the first atomic bomb test at Trinity site - a day some say changed the course of the world - the fund-raiser features a dinner, 1940s-style fashion show, and a panel discussion featuring some of those who were involved with the Manhattan Project. Those who buy tickets - at $125 per person - will take a tour of the site at the White Sands Missile Range and dine at the Owl Caf? just as scientists did back in 1945. "We thought it would be a fun fund-raiser," coordinator Kara Hayes said. "We thought it would be interesting to have people feel like they were part of the Manhattan Project." But not everyone embraces the anniversary. "We were somewhat appalled that such a serious subject would be treated as a parody," said Greg Mello, executive director of the Los Alamos Study Group. "The events they are celebrating resulted in the death of at least a quarter of a million people." Three members of the group bought tickets and will attend, along with Shigeko Sasamori, a survivor of the Hiroshima bombing. "We understand that there will be some discussion and we certainly plan to be a part of that," Mello said. The museum is aware of the group's planned attendance and has no problem with it, Director Jim Walther said. "It's an event that changed our world," Walther said. "People feel different about it one way or another." Walther said the museum does not take sides on nuclear issues. "Our role is to inform people," he said. With money raised from Friday's event, the museum will run a "Peace Day" exhibit Aug. 6 to mark the dropping of the bomb at Hiroshima, Walther said. C. Paul Robinson, who recently retired as director of Sandia National Laboratories, said the world's first nuclear explosion on that July day 60 years ago made the world a less aggressive place to live in. "The second World War cost the lives of 45 million people, but it's important to note that since the Trinity explosion, we've had no other world wars," Robinson said. "It's my belief that we may have put the fear in people that the world cannot allow that kind of mass slaughter again." The goal of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex is not to use the country's weapons on other people but "to make people so fearful of the consequences of aggression that it stops that aggression altogether," Robinson said. Diven, who won't attend the museum's event, said the goal of his work at Trinity was to bring an end to World War II, which it did. "I don't see what good protesting does," he said. "We're going to have nuclear energy anyway. I would just urge people to advocate for the development of a safe way to harness that energy." That night 60 years ago, Diven remembered tensions growing as scientists watched the weather, afraid lightening would strike the bomb. "Up until minutes before, we didn't know when it was going to go off," Diven said. The weather began to clear. The countdown started. Scientists wore welding glasses as history unfolded before their eyes. "It was like the sun came out," Diven said. "It was a long time before the the shockwave hit, but it was obvious the bomb had worked."