NucNews - August 1, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- australia Communication breakdown muddies Territory nuclear dump debate Monday, August 1, 2005. 11:11pm (AEST) Australian Broadcasting http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1427626.htm Discussions between the Territory and Federal governments over a proposed nuclear waste dump have hit some communication hurdles. Chief Minister Clare Martin has said she had not received a federal Government offer to store the Territory's nuclear waste at a planned Commonwealth dump, to be built at one of three remote Territory sites. CLP senator Nigel Scullion has told the ABC the federal Government has made its offer in writing. The Chief Minister said she had not received it and that she has been seeking an interview with the Prime Minister to tell him Territorians do not want the dump. The Prime Minister's office says it has not decided on a meeting because it has not received an official request. It says it is checked all correspondence from the Chief Minister since the middle of July and there has been no request for a meeting. -------- europe Skoda JS in second round of Bulgarian nuclear power plant tender August 1, 2005 Czech Happenings http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=141358 PLZEN- Czech company Skoda JS has advanced to the second round of a tender to build two 1,000 MW units of a nuclear power station in Bulgaria's Belene, Skoda JS said today. The contract worth Kc70-80bn would provide jobs for thousands of Czech workers for ten years. Another bidder in the second round of the tender is the Russian company Atomstroyexport. "We have to submit a detailed technical and commercial bid by December 15," Skoda JS director Radek Bencik told CTK. The Bulgarian national power company NEK EAD will sign a contract with the general supplier in early 2006. Construction work will begin in one-to-two years. The first unit in Belene should be put in operation in 2010-2011 and the second unit by 2016. The Bulgarians have already invested $1.2bn in Belene but stopped the construction in 1990 due to a lack of money and protests by environmentalists. Bulgaria has only one nuclear energy unit thus far. -------- india Questions linger as Bush pushes India nuclear deal By Carol Giacomo Diplomatic Correspondent Mon Aug 1, 2:50 PM ET (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050801/pl_nm/india_usa_nuclear_dc_2 WASHINGTON - A recent U.S.-India nuclear agreement was so hastily concluded the Bush administration is only now beginning to figure out how to implement it in the face of tough questions from the U.S. Congress and nonproliferation experts. The agreement, announced July 18 after Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met President Bush at the White House, upends decades-old nonproliferation rules and will require changes in U.S. law and international policy. U.S. officials are optimistic the Republican-controlled Congress will approve steps to fulfill Bush's promise to sell civilian nuclear technology to India. Such sales are now prohibited under U.S. law because India refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, and is producing nuclear weapons banned by the pact and other agreements. With the new deal, the United States in effect accepts India as a nuclear-weapon state. U.S. and Indian officials had aimed to conclude an agreement before Bush makes an expected trip to India in early 2006. But the atmosphere seemed ripe while Singh was in Washington, so U.S. and Indian negotiators worked around-the-clock to seal a deal. Early grumblings among lawmakers and experts who believe the accord weakens nuclear-weapons controls suggest Bush could face a battle to amend or waive U.S. law. Congressional sources say a growing Indian-American community will be a factor in supporting the accord. So far, "the administration has no clear plan" to implement the agreement, said a Republican participant in a recent briefing for congressional staff. The participant said officials had "no good answers" on how the deal would affect international security. UNANSWERED QUESTIONS U.S. officials involved in the deal acknowledged there were many unanswered questions about implementing it. These include how long it would take for India to separate its civilian and military nuclear programs, so the civilian side could be put under international monitoring. Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns plans to visit India in September and it is hoped those talks will yield answers, a senior official told Reuters. Administration and congressional aides spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the deal. Some experts worry Bush will press Congress to act before India fulfills promises to adhere to international standards to stem the spread of nuclear weapons and missiles. The senior official said the administration would not propose legislation for at least a month or two and would await Indian action to meet new nonproliferation commitments. "It will take months for the Indians to begin (to meet) some of their commitments and to complete others," the official said. "The Indians know we're going to wait and see all this occur." He said once the process was underway, the administration would ask Congress and member nations of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which seeks to control nuclear-technology exports, to modify laws and policy. EMBRACE After India tested nuclear weapons in 1998, Washington led international condemnation. But Bush has accelerated an embrace of the world's largest democracy. His aides say India shares U.S. values, does not transfer nuclear technology to troublesome entities and desperately needs to expand its energy sources. Many officials also see India as a counterweight to China, and view the deal as an opportunity to revive a shaky U.S. nuclear industry. Robert Einhorn, formerly the State Department's top nonproliferation official, said the strategic case for strengthening U.S.-India relations has broad support. But the nuclear agreement is a setback for nonproliferation and will make it harder to advocate stricter rules for Iran and North Korea, Einhorn told an American Enterprise Institute program. "The administration lowered the bar too far," he said. He said India, unlike the five nuclear-weapons states recognized under the NPT -- the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia -- is still producing weapons-grade plutonium and should be encouraged to stop, he said. -------- iran Iran to Delay Reopening Nuclear Plant By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer Mon Aug 1, 5:11 PM ET http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050801/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_20 ISFAHAN, Iran - Iran threatened to reopen its nuclear processing plant here Monday but later agreed to a two-day delay after receiving a request from the head of the U.N. atomic watchdog agency. Ali Agha Mohammadi, spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told The Associated Press that International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammed ElBaradei asked Tehran for a "maximum of two days" to send its inspectors to Iran's nuclear facility where they can oversee the dismantling of U.N. seals. But the IAEA denied setting a two-day deadline, saying more time is needed to oversee the plant's resumption of uranium processing, agency spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said. "We have sent a letter to Iran indicating that it would take at least a week to get our surveillance equipment and other required measures in place," she said. Earlier, Mohammadi had said Iranian technicians would break the seals and restart nuclear processing on Monday. Mohammadi said the combination of restraint and resolve toward restarting uranium processing showed the government's intention not to squander Iran's fundamental right to nuclear power, while preserving close ties to Europe. "Our people were worried that the government may have done a deal with the Europeans and given up the rights of the nation," Mohammadi told the AP. "We will do the rest of the work in coordination with the Europeans." Earlier in the day, ElBaradei warned Iran "not to take any action that might prejudice the process at this critical stage." EU negotiators have said they are mere days from delivering a package of incentives addressing security and political, economic and nuclear issues. "I also call on Iran not to take any unilateral action that could undermine the agency inspection process at a time when the agency is making steady progress in resolving outstanding issues," ElBaradei said. The turnaround came about only hours after the Supreme National Security Council said its technicians would break the U.N. seals on the Isfahan nuclear plant, the first step toward restarting the nuclear conversion facility and allowing controversial uranium processing to resume. Reprocessing uranium is a step below uranium enrichment, which is to remain suspended, Mohammadi had said. The United States claims the Iranian nuclear program is designed to produce weapons, a claim Iran denies. Iran maintains it suspension of uranium enrichment last November was voluntary and that it had the right to resume the activities at any time. Britain, Germany and France have been negotiating with Tehran to try to persuade Iran to drop its uranium enrichment program and related activities in return for incentives. Highly enriched uranium can be used to make weapons, while uranium enriched to a lower level can be used as fuel to produce electricity. In a letter to the IAEA, the Tehran regime said its "sincere efforts and maximum flexibility" were being answered with an EU proposal that it rejected as "totally unacceptable." "The proposal not only fails to address Iran's rights for peaceful development of nuclear technology, but even falls far short of correcting the illegal and unjustified restrictions placed on Iran's economic and technological development, let alone providing firm guarantees for economic, technological and nuclear cooperation and firm commitments on security issues," the Iranians said. IAEA spokesman Peter Rickwood earlier said the agency had told Iran it needed to install additional surveillance equipment before any conversion could resume. The agency expected to be able to do so "some time next week," he added. Iran's announcements were designed to put European Union negotiators on notice that Tehran would restart such activities. It could also lead to Iran being hauled before the U.N. Security Council to face sanctions, as previously called for by the United States. The announcements sparked an immediate warning from the European Union, which said any move to restart enrichment would damage EU-Iran trade talks. "We expect Iran to live up to the commitment of the Paris agreement" of nuclear talks with the EU, said European Commission spokesman Stefaan De Rynck. Work that would resume at Isfahan involves converting uranium ore concentrate, known as yellowcake, into uranium gas, the feedstock for enrichment. Iranian officials made clear that Iran won't resume the more important step of actual enrichment — injecting uranium gas into centrifuges used to enrich uranium — in a separate plant in Natanz, central Iran. Uranium enriched to high levels can be used for nuclear bombs; at low levels it is used as fuel for electricity-producing nuclear power plants. Iranian leaders have signaled an intensifying impatience with the slow pace of negotiations with Europe, and an incoming conservative administration in Tehran has showed signs of wanting to harden the country's stance. Iran was particularly annoyed that Germany, France and Britain had earlier called for a delay until Aug. 7 in presenting a new offer meant to sway Tehran away from its enrichment program. Earlier Monday, Iran's parliamentary speaker Gholam Ali Hadad Adel said his country did not want to end dialogue with Europe. "We are willing to continue dialogue with them after we resume part of our nuclear activities," he said. "Iran will not give in to any further waste of time." ---- Deep Background - US STRATCOM drawing up a contingency plan to nuke Iran August 1, 2005 Issue The American Conservative http://amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. ---- Iran Breaking Seals to Resume Processing Monday August 1, 2005 12:46 PM http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5181490,00.html TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iranian technicians will break U.N. seals on the Isfahan nuclear plant Monday, allowing uranium processing to resume, a spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security Council said. Officials from the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency will supervise the removal of the United Nations seals, the first step toward restarting central Iran's Isfahan Nuclear Conversion Facility, said Ali Agha Mohammadi, spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security Council, according to a report from the official IRNA news agency. Reprocessing uranium is a step below uranium enrichment, which is to remain suspended, said Mohammadi. The United States claims the Iranian nuclear program is designed to produce atomic weapons, a claim that Iran denies. The work is to resume at the Isfahan plant, which converts uranium ore concentrate, known as yellowcake, into uranium gas, the feedstock for enrichment. Uranium enriched to high levels can be used for nuclear bombs; at low levels it is used as fuel for nuclear energy plants. The European Union head office warned Iran on Monday that progress in EU-Iran trade talks were unlikely if Tehran resumes its nuclear program. ``We expect Iran to live up to the commitment'' made at nuclear talks in Paris, said European Commission spokesman Stefaan De Rynck. ``Progress in such an agreement is unlikely unless the Paris agreement has a successful follow-up.'' ---- The Iran War Buildup by MICHAEL T. KLARE The Nation August 1, 2005 [posted online on July 21, 2005] http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050801&s=klare There is no evidence that President Bush has already made the decision to attack Iran if Tehran proceeds with uranium-enrichment activities viewed in Washington as precursors to the manufacture of nuclear munitions. Top Administration officials are known to have argued in favor of military action if Tehran goes ahead with these plans--a step considered more likely with the recent election of arch-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran's president--but Bush, so far as is known, has not yet made up his mind in the matter. One thing does appear certain, however: Bush has given the Defense Department approval to develop scenarios for such an attack and to undertake various preliminary actions. As was the case in 2002 regarding Iraq, the building blocks for an attack in Iran are beginning to be put into place. We may never know exactly when President Bush made up his mind to invade Iraq--some analysts say the die was cast as early as November 2001; others claim it was not until October 2002--but whatever the case, it is beyond dispute that planning for the invasion was well advanced in July 2002, when British intelligence officials visited Washington and issued what has come to be known as the Downing Street memo, informing Prime Minister Tony Blair that war was nearly inevitable. What these officials undoubtedly discovered--as was being reported in certain newspapers at the time--was that senior officers of the US Central Command (CENTCOM) in Tampa, Florida, had already been developing detailed scenarios for an invasion of Iraq and that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been deeply involved in these preparations. On July 5, 2002, for example, the New York Times revealed that "an American military planning document calls for air, land, and sea-based forces to attack Iraq from three directions--the north, south, and west." Further details of this document and other blueprints for war appeared in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. At the same time, moreover, the Pentagon reportedly stepped up its aerial and electronic surveillance of military forces in Iraq. This record is worth revisiting because of the many parallels to the current situation. Just as Bush gave ambiguous signals about his intentions regarding Iraq in 2002--denying that a decision had been made to invade but never ruling it out--so, today, he is giving similar signals with respect to Iran. "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous," Bush declared in Belgium on February 22. He then added: "Having said that, all options are on the table." And, just as Bush's 2002 denials of an intent to invade Iraq were accompanied by intense preparations for just such an outcome, so, today, one can detect similar preparations for an attack on Iran. Just what form such an attack might take has probably not yet been decided. Just as he considered several plans for an invasion of Iraq before settling on the plan described in the Times, Rumsfeld is no doubt considering a variety of options for action against Iran. These could range from a burst of air and missile attacks to a proxy war involving Iranian opposition militias or a full-scale US invasion. All have obvious advantages and disadvantages. An air and missile attack would undoubtedly destroy some key nuclear centers but could leave some hidden facilities intact; it would also leave the hated clerical regime in place. The use of proxy forces could also fail in this regard. An invasion might solve these problems but would place almost intolerable demands on the deeply over-stretched US Army. It is these considerations, no doubt, that are preoccupying US military planners today. But while a final decision on these options may be put off for a time, the Defense Department cannot wait to make preparations for an assault if it expects to move swiftly once the President gives the go-ahead. Hence, it is taking steps now to prepare for the implementation of any conceivable plan. The first step in such a process is to verify the location of possible targets in Iran and to assess the effectiveness of Iranian defenses. The identification of likely targets apparently began late last year, when the Central Intelligence Agency and US Special Operations Forces (SOF) began flying unmanned "Predator" spy planes over Iran and sending small reconnaissance teams directly into Iranian territory. These actions, first revealed by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker in January, are supposedly intended to pinpoint the location of hidden Iranian weapons facilities for possible attack by US air and ground forces. "The goal," Hersh explained, "is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision [air] strikes and short-term commando raids." It is also probable, says military analyst William Arkin, that CENTCOM is probing Iran's air and shore defenses by sending electronic surveillance planes and submarines into--or just to the edge of--Iranian coastal areas. "I would be greatly surprised if they're not doing this," he said in an interview. "The intent would be to 'light up' Iranian radars and command/control facilities, so as to pinpoint their location and gauge their effectiveness." It was precisely this sort of aggressive probing that led to the collision between a US EP-3E electronic spy plane and a Chinese fighter over the South China Sea in April 2001. As this information becomes available, it is no doubt being fed into the various "strategic concepts" and "strike packages" being developed by US strategists for possible action against Iran. That such efforts are indeed under way is confirmed by reports in the international press that Pentagon officials have met with their Israeli counterparts to discuss the possible participation of Israeli aircraft in some of these scenarios. Although no public acknowledgment of such talks has been made, Vice President Dick Cheney declared in January that "the Israelis might well decide to act first" if Iran proceeded with the development of nuclear weapons--obviously hinting that Washington would look with favor upon such a move. There are also indications that the CIA and SOF officials have met with Iranian opposition forces--in particular, the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK)--to discuss their possible involvement in commando raids inside Iran or a full-scale proxy war. In one such report, Newsweek disclosed in February that the Bush Administration "is seeking to cull useful MEK members as operatives for use against Tehran." (Although the MEK is listed on the State Department's roster of terrorist groups, its forces are "gently treated" by the American troops guarding their compound in eastern Iraq, Newsweek revealed.) Given the immense stress now being placed on US ground forces in Iraq, it is likely that the Pentagon's favored plan for military action in Iran involves some combination of airstrikes and the use of proxy forces like the MEK. But even a small-scale assault of this sort is likely to provoke retaliatory action by Iran--possibly entailing missile strikes on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf or covert aid to the insurgency in Iraq. This being the case, CENTCOM would also have to develop plans for a wide range of escalatory moves. Repeating what was said at the outset, there is no evidence that President Bush has already made the decision to attack Iran. But there are many indications that planning for such a move is well under way--and if the record of Iraq (and other wars) teaches us anything, it is that such planning, once commenced, is very hard to turn around. Hence, we should not wait until after relations with Iran have reached the crisis point to advise against US military action. We should begin acting now, before the march to war becomes irreversible. -------- iraq / inspections Lawsuit charges CIA was told Iraq had no nuclear program Mon Aug 1, 3:39 AM ET (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050801/pl_afp/usiraqcia_050801060552 WASHINGTON - A former employee has charged the Central Intelligence Agency was told by an informant in the spring of 2001 that Iraq had abandoned a major element of its nuclear weapons program, The New York Times reported. But the newspaper said the agency did not share the information with other agencies or with senior policy makers. In a lawsuit filed in federal court here in December, the former CIA officer, whose name remains secret, said that the informant told him that Iraq's uranium enrichment program had ended years earlier and that centrifuge components from the scuttled program were available for examination and even purchase, the report said. The paper said the officer, an employee at the agency for more than 20 years, was fired in 2004. In his lawsuit, he says his dismissal was punishment for his reports questioning the agency's assumptions on a series of weapons-related matters, according to The Times. He also charged that he had been the target of retaliation for his refusal to go along with the agency's intelligence conclusions. While the existence of the lawsuit has previously been reported, details of the case have not been made public because the documents in his suit have been heavily censored by the government and the substance of the claims was classified, the paper said. Information about his allegations was provided to The Times by several people with detailed knowledge of the case. The former officer's lawyer, Roy Krieger, likened his client's situation to that of Valerie Plame, the clandestine CIA officer whose role was leaked to the press after her husband publicly challenged some administration conclusions about Iraq's nuclear ambitions, the report said. "In both cases, officials brought unwelcome information on WMD in the period prior to the Iraq invasion, and retribution followed," Krieger was quoted in the report as saying. The former officer has been accused of having sex with a female contact and diverting to his own use money earmarked for payments to informants. He denies both charges, according to The Times. -------- korea Korean Nuclear Talks Turn Pessimistic By BURT HERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mon Aug 1, 3:32 PM ET http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050801/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear_24 BEIJING - The chief U.S. envoy to talks on North Korea's nuclear program said Monday he saw few chances for quick progress as efforts to draft a statement of basic principles dragged into a second week. Negotiators were working on a second draft proposed by host China after they spent the weekend struggling with North Korea's demands for what it should receive if it disarms. "I don't see any breakthroughs on the immediate horizon," a visibly weary U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill told reporters after what he said was 12 hours of meetings. "It's been a long day without a lot of progress to report." Hill said "rather major differences" remained between North Korea and the other five governments. He said some issues that the Americans had thought were resolved re-emerged as disagreements on Monday, but he would not give details. He said he did not know how long the talks would last, but was having eight shirts laundered. "We'll stay here as long as we feel we're making progress," Hill said. "If we're not making progress, we're not going to stay." Unlike previous rounds of talks, which lasted three days and failed to find agreement on a joint statement, delegates this time set no deadline for talks to end and appeared determined to work out a declaration of basic principles to guide future negotiations. China gathered input from the delegations — which also include Japan, Russia and South Korea — and proposed a second draft of an agreement late Sunday, according to Hill. No details of either draft statement have been released, but reports during the weekend said it would mention energy aid and a security guarantee for Pyongyang and eventually normalized political relations with Washington. The document is likely to be short. Statements issued at the end of previous rounds of talks have been less than two pages. Chief delegates will discuss another revision Tuesday, South Korea's No. 2 envoy said after he and other deputies spent 3 1/2 hours poring over the proposal Monday. "Some issues have been sorted out but there remain many issues that we should continue to work on," Cho Tae-yong said. "We are moving steadily forward." Washington has also sought more direct contact with the North at the current fourth round of arms talks than at previous sessions, and the sides met twice Monday, a South Korean official said on condition of due to the sensitivity of the talks. The U.S. and North Korea delegations had a working dinner Saturday, according to Hill. The United States and North Korea have been unable so far to agree on who should make the first move on the path to the North's disarmament, according to delegates. The latest nuclear standoff was sparked after U.S. officials said in late 2002 that the North admitted to violating a 1994 deal by embarking on a secret uranium enrichment program. Given that experience, the Bush administration says it wants to see North Korea's weapons program eliminated first before giving concessions. The North does not want to give up its nuclear bargaining chip without a reward, such as aid and security guarantees. The North also wants the right to have peaceful nuclear reactors for generating power, but Washington is afraid they could be misused to produce material for bombs. Japan has also reportedly insisted the issue of its citizens abducted by the North be mentioned in the statement, an emotional domestic issue. "We will do our best to reflect our stance in the draft," the Japanese delegate, Deputy Foreign Minister Sasae Kenichiro, said Monday, declining to give details. In February, the North claimed it had nuclear weapons and has since taken steps that would allow it to harvest more plutonium for possible use in bombs. Many experts believe the North already has enough weapons-grade material for about a half-dozen atomic weapons. -------- russia Blast on Russia nuclear submarine (BBC) Monday, 1 August, 2005, 15:27 GMT 16:27 UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4735851.stm One person has been killed and another injured in an explosion on a Russian nuclear submarine in dock for decommissioning. The blast occurred at the Zvyozdochka shipyard, in Severodvinsk, where the vessel had been sent to be dismantled. Reports say the nuclear reactor had already been removed. The Viktor class submarine arrived at the yard in June and the work was due to be carried out using funds from Canada, Interfax reported. The Associated Press said the fire caused by the blast was extinguished after nearly four hours. Oleg Frolov, chief engineer for the shipyard, told Russian NTV that there was no danger of radioactive contamination from the incident. Igor Grigoriyev, a spokesman for the Emergency Situations Ministry in the region, said a welding torch apparently ignited fuel vapours that had built up in one compartment of the submarine, according to AP. ---- Russia to spend $175m for submarine decommissioning in 2005 The western countries will provide the major part of this sum in the frames of non-proliferation efforts. 2005-08-01 17:10 Bellona Foundation http://193.71.199.52/en/international/russia/navy/northern_fleet/decommissioning/39198.html The head of the State Duma's Committee on Industry, Construction, and Science Intensive Technologies, Martin Shakkum announced the exact sum in the beginning of July, Kommersant reported. The Russian budget allocated $66.8m, the western donors will provide the rest. The western aid is increasing every year from $21m in 2002 till $94.5m in 2004 while the Russian share is the same, Shakkum said. He added that total 195 nuclear power submarined and two surface nuclear-powered ships were taken out of service in Russia, 112 nuclear submarines have been dismantled. ---- Specialists investigate submarine fire 01/ 08/ 2005 (RIA Novosti, Northwest, Anna Novak) http://en.rian.ru/russia/20050801/41070016.html ST. PETERSBURG, August 1 - Investigations are being carried out into the fire at the Zvezdochka factory in Severodvinsk (a White Sea port), a city administration spokesman said. The spokesman also said that one person is currently being treated for severe burns. The fire broke out in a section of the Zvezdochka factory, where one nuclear submarine had already been decommissioned, at 8:30 Moscow time (4:30 GMT). One person has died. The submarine's nuclear reactor had previously been removed. Zvezdochka's chief engineer Oleg Frolov said the fire was caused by diesel fuel igniting. -------- u.s. nuc weapons Blowback From The A-Bombs (Swans - August 1, 2005) by Philip Greenspan http://www.swans.com/library/art11/pgreen70.html August 6th will mark the sixtieth anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, the first atomic bombing of a wartime enemy. Those alive at that time will never forget their initial reaction upon learning of the awesome effects of that abominable weapon. I, a GI expecting transfer to the Far East for participation in the invasion of Japan, was ecstatic. Every GI, in fact everyone whom I knew, was overjoyed. It was obvious. World War II would soon be history. Many lives would be saved. Much suffering would be avoided. "Hooray, hooray, hooray for the bomb and for Harry Truman for using it!" As time wore on horrifying accounts slipped through the censorship net and the unanimous approval and euphoria kept diminishing as more and more prominent individuals condemned the bombing. Defenders of the decision acknowledged that the A-bomb was indeed an abominable weapon that caused inordinate numbers of innocent people untold suffering, but insisted that its use saved lives and was directed against the country whose unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor started a war. Individuals who scrupulously examined the evidence that has accumulated over the years are convinced that the bombings were unnecessary. I believe the few items that follow are sufficient to raise doubts about its "necessity" in persons with open minds. On August 15, 1945, President Harry Truman ordered a detailed study entitled "US Strategic Bombing Survey (Pacific War)." It was headed by twelve prominent American civilians, a select elite group. Its staff of 300 civilians, 350 military officers, and 500 enlisted men examined Japanese records and interrogated top military officers, government officials, industrialists, political leaders, and many hundreds of others throughout Japan. It was completed ten and a half months later on July 1, 1946. I have selected some pertinent sections from the 32 pages of the summary, highlighting points I wish to emphasize. One hundred thousand people were killed, 6 square miles or over 50 percent of the built-up areas of the two cities were destroyed . . . Early in May 1945, the Supreme War Direction Council began active discussion of ways and means to end the war, and talks were initiated with Soviet Russia seeking her intercession as mediator. . . .The timing of the Potsdam Conference interfered with a plan to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special emissary with instructions from the cabinet to negotiate for peace on terms less than unconditional surrender, but with private instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price. . . . it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. . . .Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. How did the most knowledgeable men, the top brass in the military, regard the decision to use the bomb? They almost unanimously condemned it. The roll call includes: General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower, supreme allied commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF); General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, supreme allied commander of the South West Pacific Area; Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, chief of staff to the President; General of the Army Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, commanding general of the US Army Air Forces; General Carl "Tooey" Spaatz, chief of staff of the US Air Force and commander US Army Strategic Air Force (USASTAF); Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, and Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King commander in chief of the US Fleet and chief of Naval Operations. Only Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall, former assistant secretary of war, acquiesced with the decision, insisting that it was a question for the president and not for the military to decide. Two well-known hawks a step lower in rank also criticized the decision The notorious Major General Curtis E. LeMay, commander of the Twenty-First Bomber Command -- who admitted, according to Robert MacNamara in the film Fog of War, that his awesome bombings were war crimes -- was quoted as saying "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all." Another no holds barred tough wartime fighter, Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, Jr., commander of the US Third Fleet asserted "The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before." The invasion of Japan was scheduled to commence in November. Certainly between the date of the bombing and November there was ample opportunity to test the Japanese willingness to surrender. Several of Truman's advisors were confident that modifying the unconditional surrender provision would do the trick. He was approached at least fourteen times before August 8th to get him to do just that but those attempts failed. There is abundant evidence to justify the conviction that the bombing was worthless. Yet the somnolent silent majority, too lazy to peruse the available evidence, has remained steadfast in their belief that the abominable act was indeed necessary -- thanks to the military-industrial complex, the super-patriots, and the establishment media that foster the myth. History is replete with instances where leaders' claims differed from their motives and actions. Bush's current terrorist war is the most recent example. Scandals by both Democratic and Republican administrations over the years attest to deceptions that were exposed. Many others, where speech did not match action, were effectively covered up. Isn't it probable that Truman knew the A-bomb would not shorten the war? So why did he use it? What could have been his motive? An extremely rare and propitious -- once in a lifetime -- opportunity arose. The U.S. in sole possession of an unbelievably powerful weapon, a literally earth shattering bomb, would startle the world. Every nation would henceforth carefully ponder every action that might antagonize Uncle Sam. What an advantageous position to be in. The world was his oyster. But Sam would certainly not let on that this was his motive. He would continue to espouse the benevolent bullshit that has been his hallmark since he arrived on the scene. "Shock and Awe" is the neocons' version of the scare the crap out of 'em routine. Many potential problems were surfacing and would unfold in the post-war period. Chaos reigned in many areas of the world. Indonesians were rebelling against their rightful masters, the Dutch. Rumblings from other colonies soon followed. In Europe the heroic activities of the resistance had gained the approval and trust of the people. They were leading former allies to the political left. Fear of the U.S. might moderate some of the radical forces creating these troubles. It wasn't long, however, before the damn Soviets had unlocked the secret to the A-bomb. Sam's nuclear advantage had been trumped. Each side now maneuvered for control of various Third World countries, carefully avoiding direct confrontations with each other. Both spent recklessly, each side upping the other to gain new weapons and new spheres of influence. Eventually the Soviets used up all their chips and could no longer ante up for the next round. They not only dropped out of the big time game but their empire slipped away. The good news for the U.S. was not assessed that way by its military-industrial complex. Without an enemy the public expected a peace dividend -- a substantial reduction in the military budget. This was truly a major problem. A new enemy had to be found pronto before spending was cut. As luck would have it the dictator the U.S. embraced in the Iran-Iraq war was suckered into becoming the latest edition of Adolf reincarnated. Gulf War I came to the rescue just in time. The war gave Uncle Sam an opportunity to test some of those new deadly playthings that are constantly rolling out of the mass-murder factories. Wars provide the military with the appropriate laboratory to test weapons, tactics, equipment, etc. The guinea pigs are the unfortunate soldiers and innocent civilians, friend and foe alike, who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Vietnam War begat a wonder weapon titled, Agent Orange, a biological defoliant that has produced untold suffering in many GIs and even in their children. The military insisted that the weapon had no side effects and denied claims for disability. After years of repeated denials, proof was uncovered that the manufacturers and the military were well aware before their use of the negative health conditions that would develop. The fiasco of Agent Orange illness on the GIs did not deter the military's search for some new more lethal weapon. Just leave it to those imaginative and resourceful mad scientists. For Gulf War I they were able to come up with a new baby, fanfare please, Depleted Uranium (DU). They took the by-product of the uranium enrichment process; finagled here, there, to the right, left, up, down; threw in a little mumbo jumbo and, voila, a new weapon. And how does son-of-the-A-bomb perform? Beautifully, the military insists. It can pierce the armor of a tank from long distances. But horrendous side effects emerge long after the bodies of unlucky individuals -- soldiers and innocent civilians -- absorb the ubiquitous DU dust that disperses after the weapon has been fired. The military emphatically denies that DU causes health problems. Shades of Agent Orange! Numerous medical and radiation experts who have delved into the health and medical aspects of radiation and specifically DU conclude that DU causes the malady Gulf War Syndrome (GWS). Although the military denies that conclusion, the VA has granted disability compensation to over half a million Gulf I veterans. Since DU's first use in Gulf I hundreds of tons equivalent to thousands of Nagasaki bombs have been dropped in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc. It pollutes the areas where it settles with toxic radiation that will last for 4.5 billion years. Gulf I was a quickie war that concluded with a handful of GI casualties. Now roughly fifteen years later symptoms of the insidious GWS have arisen in ever increasing numbers of the Gulf I vets. The current war and occupation has lasted almost two and a half years. During that time DU has been spewing its toxicity and GI casualties have exceeded 1,750 dead and 13,000 wounded. If over half of the GI vets of quickie Gulf I are now suffering from GWS, what's destined for the current GIs in fifteen years? The lies that the Bush gang employed to inveigle the country into war with the encouragement of the super patriots has backfired. None of their predictions -- cakewalk, flowers, hearts and minds, democracy -- panned out. The GIs and the country at large are paying a high price for their duplicity. This result is not unusual. Deceptions have often been repaid with blowback, ergo Vietnam. Truman's heartless decision to use the A-bomb needlessly killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese but gained the endorsement of super-patriots. The refusal over the years by the establishment to even permit public disclosure of dissenting arguments provided legitimacy to radioactive weapons whose mere use should be designated a war crime! As a result, that ghastly atomic bomb has spawned an offspring, DU, which ironically has devastated the offspring of the WWII generation who were so overjoyed with Truman's decision. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- nevada Yucca Mountain facing new delay License application date pushed back By ERICA WERNER THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Monday, August 01, 2005 Las Vegas Review-Journal http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-01-Mon-2005/news/26976859.html WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department probably will not submit its license application to build Yucca Mountain until March 2006 at the earliest, several months later than the most recent target date, according to an updated project timeline. The Energy Department plans to update a Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing board on the timeline this week. An Energy Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity so as not to interfere with the licensing process, disclosed the timeline. Under NRC rules, the Energy Department cannot submit its license application to build the nuclear waste repository until it publicly releases background documents for the application. DOE must certify, six months before submitting the license application, that relevant documents have been disclosed through Web-based Licensing Support Network, which can be seen by the public at http://www.lsnnet.gov. Under the updated timeline, the certification would not happen until September or later, the official said. That would make March 2006 the earliest date DOE could submit its license application. DOE had hoped to submit the license application in December, and it certified in June 2004 that it had made the background documents available as required. That certification was rejected as inadequate by an NRC board. After that setback, DOE said it would aim for this December. That date has slipped as well. The Energy Department official said no new date has been set. The official said the department's priority is to ensure that this time, the certification passes muster. The official said the Energy Department has completed 85 percent to 90 percent of the work of entering the millions of relevant documents into the Licensing Support Network. Yucca Mountain, planned for 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has been beset by several problems, including an appeals court's rejection last year of the government's proposed radiation safety standard for the repository. This spring, internal e-mails became known suggesting government workers had falsified data. ---- Are There Alternatives To The Yucca Mountain Project? Aug 1, 2005, 06:27 PM KVBC TV http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3620754&nav=15MVcNv5 It's being called a bad idea that's only gotten worse over the years. That's how one man sums up the Yucca Mountain Project. Victor Gilinsky is a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He's now helping Nevada fight the Nuclear Waste Repository. As News 3's Mitch Truswell reports, despite the 8 billion dollars spent on Yucca Mountain so far, Gilinsky still sees many problems with it. "They've resisted any independent look at this, they're doing this all in house completely." That's one of Victor Gilinsky's main complaints about the Yucca Mountain project. Not enough science and too much effort by the department of energy to just get the project done. "If they resist an independent look, how can you have any confidence in what they do?" Even though radioactive waste would be encapsulated in multiple layers of metal, and put in casks, not everyone is convinced. What we don't know is how these containers will hold up over hundreds or thousands of years. Will they corrode or leak? That's why DOE has suggested putting in a drip shield. It's a barrier to keep water from getting to the containers, limiting the possibility of corrosion and leaks. Gilinsky says the drip shield could come years after waste arrives at Yucca Mountain. "They're not putting in the drip shield when they put in the waste. They're talking about putting in the drip shield at the time the repository is closed. That could be 300 years from now." There's another concern. Gilinsky wonders how the tunnels, which provide access to the repository site, will hold up far into the future. "The idea that they're gonna have these trolleys running around 200 or 300 years from now putting in the drip shield, that's just pie in the sky, it's ridiculous." Concerns about the project also come from former DOE employees. Gilinksy claims a former DOE undersecretary told him Yucca Mountain was a terrible site and full of problems. The undersecretary never expressed that opinion until after leaving the agency. "I think the feeling is among knowledgeable people, sympathetic to nuclear power, this is a poor choice." So what would Gilinsky do with the waste, instead of burying it at Yucca Mountain? He says if the DOE is so confident in their containers which will hold the radioactive waste, those containers should be used to contain the waste where it is right now, at hundreds of sites, including nuclear power plants, around the country. That also means the waste won't have to be transported though cities and towns across the country. The Department of Energy expects to submit its application for a license sometime in 2006. The DOE originally hoped to submit that license request in December of last year. -------- pennsylvania DEP to discuss plan to move ash By Wynne Everett PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW NEWS SERVICE Monday, August 1, 2005 http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/s_359072.html Based on recommendations from the Nuclear Regulator Commission, state officials believe their plan to move uranium-contaminated ash from a waste-water treatment lagoon to a landfill is safe. Officials from the state Department of Environmental Protection will discuss that plan with residents at a Tuesday public hearing in Allegheny Township. The DEP plans to remove about 12,000 cubic yards of ash from the waste-water lagoon at the Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control Authority's sewage treatment plant. The ash contains low levels of uranium, carried there between 1977-84 by waste water from the former Babcock and Wilcox facility in Apollo. B&W, along with Atlantic Richfield and Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. before it, produced nuclear fuel for military and private industry at sites in Apollo and Parks. At least 400 area residents and former workers are alleged to have died or have illnesses caused by the nuclear-fuel processing at the sites, according to lawsuits and claims filed with the federal government. Since B&W ceased operation in 1984, a succession of cleanup projects have aimed to rid the former sites of contamination, including the contaminated ash in the waste water lagoon The Nuclear Regulatory Commission studied the ash and issued a report in January that said it meets the agency's criteria for what the agency calls "unrestricted use," meaning the ash can be treated like any other noncontaminated waste. Robert Kossack, director of the Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control Authority, said he trusts the NRC's conclusions. "They're a lot smarter than I am about the nuclear issues," he said. An independent consultant for the authority reviewed the NRC study and agreed the DEP's plan to move the ash to a landfill is safe, Kossack said. Over the course of a month, DEP said it plans to truck the waste to one of two landfills. The ash will either go to the Valley Landfill in Penn Township, Westmoreland County, or to the Monroeville Landfill. Tuesday's public hearing will be at 7 p.m. at Markle Volunteer Fire Hall, 470 Beverly Drive, Allegheny Township. Wynne Everett can be reached at weverett@tribweb.com or (724) 226-4676. -------- tennessee Road will provide way to haul radioactive waste from K-25 August 1, 2005 Associated Press http://www.volunteertv.com/global/story.asp?s=3665459&ClientType=Printable OAK RIDGE, Tenn. Soon the Department of Energy will have a new way to haul radioactive waste from the old K-25 facility to a nuclear landfill. Work is ongoing on a road that will be used to haul tons of low-level radioactive waste away from the uranium-enrichment facility to a site six miles away. Officials say the haul road will reduce public exposure to hazardous substances that are sometimes transported over public roadways. The road is a vital part in the government's accelerated cleanup program and is expected to cost between 15 and 20 (m) million dollars. Work is scheduled to wrap up near the end of the year. -------- MILITARY -------- arms Israel asks Ukraine to demand Iran return illegally-sold cruise missiles 01/08/2005 By Ze'ev Schiff, Haaretz Correspondent http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/606908.html Israel has asked the government of Ukraine to demand that Iran return 12 long-range cruise missiles purchased during the tenure of the previous Ukrainian government via arms dealers whom the current government claims were acting illegally. The issue was raised during Ukrainian Defense Minister Anatoliy Hrytsenko's visit to Israel last week. However, Ukraine has not yet responded to Israel's request, and it seems doubtful that Iran would agree to return the missiles in any case. The missiles in question, known as the Kh-55 in their Russian/Ukrainian version and as AS-15 Kent in the NATO version, have a range of 2,000 to 3,000 kilometers, depending on the weight of the warhead (lighter warheads enable a longer range). That is far longer than the 1,300-kilometer range of Iran's surface-to-surface Shihab-3 missiles. In addition, a cruise missile can strike its target from any direction, since the ship that launches it is mobile. The Shihab-3, in contrast, could only be launched at Israel from the northeast, where Iran's territory lies. On the flip side, cruise missiles are slower than ground-based missiles, and therefore easier for a fighter jet to down in flight. The Kh-55 was developed in the 1980s by Russian experts, but the Soviet Union decided to have it in manufactured in Ukraine. Later, however, a U.S.-Soviet arms control agreement dictated the destruction of all medium-range missiles on both sides, which should have included the Kh-55. Thus the missiles' very existence constitutes a major treaty violation, and when the Americans learned several months ago about the sale to Iran, they consequently began an investigation. It later emerged that eight of the missiles were also sold to China. A parallel Ukrainian investigation, which was first reported a few months ago by Britain's Financial Times, found that the sale was arranged via a fictitious company established for that purpose on Cyprus, and that the export papers falsely declared the missiles' destination to be the Russian defense ministry. The Ukrainian prosecution also said that a Russian company had promised to supply spare parts for the Iranian missiles. The Ukrainians told Israel that the warheads had been dismantled before the missiles were sold to Iran, but that is cold comfort, since Iran can easily make new warheads. The real concern is the guidance system, which enables the missile to strike its target with great accuracy. Moreover, NATO believed that the Soviets were able to arm the Kh-55 with nuclear warheads. The sub rosa purchase of cruise missiles from Ukraine demonstrates the enormous effort that Iran is investing in improving its missile capabilities. Iran is also working on the Shihab-4 surface-to-surface missile, which would have a range of over 2,000 kilometers. In addition, it made a major breakthrough on the Shihab-3 several weeks ago when it succeeded in making a solid fuel engine for the missile. Earlier versions had used liquid fuel, which requires a much longer launch time and therefore leaves the missile more vulnerable to preventive air strikes. -------- biological weapons Nation unready for germ attacks By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY 8/1/2005 7:41 AM http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-31-germ-attacks_x.htm WASHINGTON — The nation is woefully unprepared to respond to a bioterrorism attack despite a $20 billion government investment in bioterrorism preparedness since 2001, according to top government and public health officials and members of Congress. (Related story: Cities fret over vaccine deliveries) "We're almost four years after 9/11, and we've made maybe six months' worth of progress," says Irwin Redlener of Columbia University's National Center for Disaster Preparedness. Redlener says the programs could be run more effectively. "We're wasting billions and billions of dollars," he says. Former Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge says a biological attack with a contagious agent is his greatest fear. With respect to preparedness, "we're not where we want to be," he says. Michael Chertoff, the current secretary, named a new chief medical officer last month and said he intends to put more emphasis on potentially catastrophic attacks. But bioterrorism preparedness rests largely with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which is responsible for stocking lifesaving antidotes, sharing information among labs and hospitals and helping communities deliver aid in an emergency. "This challenge is larger than almost anything we've ever faced," says William Raub, who runs HHS' public health emergency preparedness. The government may be years away from being adequately prepared, he says, but "I don't think anyone here has anything to apologize for." Among the problems: • The government has created a national stockpile of medical equipment and supplies and can move the supplies to any city within 12 hours of an attack, but local officials aren't prepared to deliver the material to citizens in time to save lives. "Not a single city in America is prepared," says Richard Falkenrath, a former top White House aide on homeland security. • A $5.6 billion, 10-year government program to spur pharmaceutical firms to develop vaccines and antidotes has yet to produce the drugs. President Bush announced Project BioShield in 2003. The funding is for encouraging firms to invest in research to produce antidotes. The government would buy much of the new drugs if they met certain standards. But major pharmaceutical companies have ignored the program in part out of liability concerns. "Millions and millions of lives are at stake," says Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. • The nation's 5,000 hospitals couldn't handle a surge of patients. "Hospital preparedness is an exercise in fantasy," says former HHS preparedness chief Jerome Hauer, who developed the nation's first bioterrorism response plan for New York City. "Most people think having 100 beds is surge capacity. But most cities, if they were to have 10,000-15,000 patients, would be brought to their knees." -------- iraq Mesopotamia - Now An Endangered Species By Felicity Arbuthnot GlobalResearch.ca, August 1, 2005 Coastal Post (Marin County, CA) http://www.coastalpost.com/05/08/14.html A year after the 'handover' to a US handpicked 'independent Iraqi administration'-few of whose leaders have Iraqi passports or allegiance; and the skulking departure of US 'Viceroy' Paul Bremer, who said few farewells, gave no press conference and slunk out at dawn, surreally, reportedly, to 'take cookery lessons'-a little noticed and truly terrible report has been released. The World Monument Fund has, for the first time, named an entire country-Iraq-on its list of endangered sites. The Fund, which publishes every two years an inventory of the world's most endangered historical and archeological sites and monuments, lists the 'cradle of civilization' as, effectively, in danger of extinction. The illegal invasion, built on monumental lies, from Whitehall to Washington, has not alone 'destroyed the village in order to save it', it has destroyed the country, the land of the biblical Tigris and Euphrates- described by Gertude Bell, writer, colonialist-nevertheless captivated by this 'land between two rivers'-in the 1920's -'... great twin rivers gloriously named, The huge Babylonian plains, now desert, Which were once the garden of the world...' We have destroyed humanity's history. The enormity of this historic wickedness has achieved what no other invader in the millennia of chronicles of Mesopotamia has done. An evocative snapshot of some of the major invasions which George Bush and his coalition of the deluded have dwarfed, make salutary reading. Iraqi poet, Sinan Antoun lists some who also marauded through Baghdad, 'the Paris of the ninth century.'1. '945 Buwayhids; 1055 Seljuks; 1258 Mongols led by Hulagu; 1340 Jalayrs; 1393 & 1401 Mongols led by Tamerlane; 1411 Turkoman Black Sheep; 1469 Turkoman White Sheep ; 1508 Safavids;1534 Ottomans under Sultan Sulayman the Magnificent; 1623 Safavids; 1638 Ottomans under Sultan Murad IV; 1917 British; 1941 British again to depose pro-German government-2003 Anglo-American invasion.' The latter, he wrote, in an agonized column, the week of the April 2003's destruction and declaration of 'liberation', as the world's most ancient history was trashed by troops of a nation that has none, betrayed '... like never before all of the accolades bestowed upon Baghdad by its numerous rulers, chroniclers and lovers. It is no longer now the "Abode of Peace, Mother of the World, Abode of Beauty, Gift of the Gods, Triumph of the Gods, Round City" '. Antoun tiptoes through his memories. 'I must tread warily, for the streets are still littered with bodies, books and blood. Even the safe, labyrinthine streets of my own memory are not free from the ghosts of wars, but at least they cannot be destroyed, or looted and pillaged, except by amnesia.' He draws a shaming comparison between the contemporary marauders, barbarians and their historic predecessors. In earlier 'missions accomplished', the '... caliphs and sultans were also patrons of art and knowledge, connoisseurs, and sometimes composers, of the most beautiful poetry to have survived in the collective memory of the Arabs.' 'Now, it is Baghdad's ironic fate to have been subjugated by a would-be emperor, who has yet to master his mother tongue. While he is fully aware of the geo-strategic importance of Baghdad, Bush is probably the one least aware, in the history of the city's conquerors, of the precious symbolism... 'and richest history of civilization's fragile cultural and historic treasure. 'Does it matter to him?' Baghdad-formerly Dar Es Salaam (City of Peace) was, for the first twelve hundred years of its existence, regarded as one of the most refined, civilized and festive cities on earth. Now, as with the Mongols, it is sullied, degraded, humiliated, rubble-strewn. Its living spirit, which carries a golden legacy of beauty and learning to subsequent generations, the all-time gift of those gone before, lying trampled, mortally wounded, in need of life support, under the jack boots of illegal invaders, who for the most, despise the people, culture, language, and the learning which is the largesse of Mesopotamia to the world. In a further irony, the laws protecting cultural property, archeological sites, history, libraries, scientific legacy, date back to the American civil war. That carnage led to the 1863 Lieber Code and applied to American troops and influenced the 1954 and 1977 additional protocols to the Geneva Convention protecting 'the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples.' The Nuremberg trials after World War II was the first time individuals were held to account for cultural war crimes and several Nazi officials were sentenced to death for violations, including the desecration of cultural property. 2. The World Monument Fund describes the looting at the archeological sites around the country; direct conflict as with the Malwiya-'the spiral' minaret of Samarra built probably before 852 A.D. Conceived from love of beauty, reverence, bricks and clay-that was bombed resultant from American snipers using the site. Babylon, which has also been occupied by military forces, had a military helicopter pad built, destroying history's undiscovered legacies-and site of a wonder of the world, the Hanging Gardens-from as far as estimates of forty thousand years ago. Looting of the remains at Nineveh, the great Assyrian capital, glorious until now-from seven hundred years before Christ. Whether the site of the Garden of Eden too is destroyed; the place from which Noah is believed to have sent the dove which brought back the olive leaf, showing the flood had subsided, is unknown. Does Ur remain, where Abraham, Father of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, for believers was born, suckled, legend has it, on one finger which brought forth milk and the other honey. We have, it seems, destroyed the land of milk and honey, maybe burial places of St. Matthew and the Prophet Jonah. The Tigris is poisoned with sewage, the detritus of war-and dead bodies, slung there by American troops and who knows what other formerly non-existent forces. Destruction has a broader geographic illegal canvas to draw on than even the horrors inflicted on another holy, fragile, antique site, Palestine. Many of the methods, however, are chillingly similar. Two professed Christian leaders have robbed the world of the continuity of our collective past, whatever color, creed or nationality. They have destroyed the revered sites that travelers and pilgrims of all that is history have gazed on in awe since time immemorial. The contemporary Crusaders have, in exchange, left their own historic legacy to Iraq and its neighbors. In place of beauty, our collective past, the heritage of the world, napalm, phosphorous bombs, landmines and a land poisoned by depleted uranium waste, radioactive and chemically toxic, condemning ground, the gracious Iraqi people and indeed the coalition of the coerced and their illegally installed puppet government, for four-and-a-half billion years, to cancers, offspring with fetal deformities, tumors, and the unimaginable. 'We do not inherit the earth, we are its custodians for future generations,' is a sacred pledge-except to a born-again barbarian in Washington or Whitehall. Some 'Christians' give God a bad name. Now, "Snipers hunt people in the streets. People attempting to go to health centers are shot at," testified Eman Khammas, at the World Tribunal on Iraq in Istanbul. "There are many crippled children. There are thousands of widows and orphans. There are no police for security and there are no courts. Even hospitals are occupied and bombed and burned." At the Tribunal, Former US Air Force combat veteran Tim Goodrich stunned the jury by revealing his role in the "softening up" of Iraq months before the US declaration of war. "We were dropping bombs then, and I saw bombing intensify," Goodrich explained to a hushed room. "All the documents coming out now, the Downing Street memo and others, confirm what I had witnessed in Iraq. The war had already begun while our leaders were telling us that they were going to try all diplomatic options first." 3. In fact, the destruction of Mesapotamia had been embarked upon in 1991 and the starvation, deprivation, bombing of the place of our collective consciousness had continued and continues ever since. Falluja, Najav, Samarra, Kufa, Kerbala, Al Qa'em, Ramadi, Mosul, Al Talafar, Iraq's towns and villages, ancient, sacred and simply home for generations, north, south, east, west, are being raised to the ground. Guernica, My Lai, a silent Hiroshima and Nagasaki, rolled together in silent screams-silenced by isolation, journalists too fearful to travel, a cowering, compliant UN betrayal of all it stands for under a spineless Secretary General seemingly more concerned by salary than slaughter, pension than principle. And for braver journalists, 'accidental' execution by US forces at worst, or censorship frequently by corporate masters in media boardrooms who, or whose pals, also sit on many Boards of the multinationals attempting to plunder Iraq. At least a glimmer of truth emerged recently with the renaming of the Iraq debacle 'Operation Iraqi Liberation'-OIL. Like the US forces, the British too were instructed that as soon as they entered Iraq from Kuwait, their first mission was to secure the oil installations. 4. Not for nothing did the Iraqis nearly immediately dub Vice President Dick Cheney's giant former employer and ongoing generous benefactor 'Halli-baba.' Whilst Bush blathers and brags about 'freedom'-dictionary definition 'the state of being free, especially to ... enjoy civil liberties..'-at Fort Bragg, mothers, fathers and baby 'insurgents' are shot and slaughtered in their homes, cars, in family groups, in dozens and hundreds-unaccountable, precious lives, loves. Call those lives 'insurgents' and mass murder becomes no more than a daily routine. Those who have become addicted to it will return to their home towns and States one day to live out the addiction there, or live for all time with their nightmares. 'The sacrifice' is worth it, bragged the bragger, who makes none, attends no funerals and directs that coffins of America's fallen not be photographed, their passing unmarked, unhonoured, except by their own. Their final departure is as invisible as Iraq's sons and daughters. In death they are both joined in solidarity by the lies and betrayal of the world's most powerful nation and the 'coalition' of the coerced. As Americans celebrate Independence Day, it may be apt to reflect how that independence was won. It was from defeating occupying forces, fighting for freedom, for 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', just as Iraqis are doing. Were those who won America 'terrorists', 'insurgents'. There are, however, 160,000 of the latter on Iraqi soil. Iraq's fighters are largely resistance fighters who want their country and its assets back and as America's two hundred years ago, are prepared to die for that end. Soldiers of the 'coalition' have no need-or right-to be in Iraq now that the Secretary General of the UN has said the invasion was illegal and a mounting pile of documents are potent witness to the lies on which it was built. In fact, just by being there, state a mounting body of legal experts, they could return to their countries not alone to live with their demons, but to find themselves charged with war crimes. Troops are being sold a further lie-that Iraq's army, police, people, are too backward, primitive, stupid, inept, to manage their own affairs and thus troops must remain. Two years ago the world was told Iraq's people were so sophisticated that their military and their expertise threatened the entire planet. Prior to the invasion Iraq was a functioning-though battered by two decades of war and thirteen years of uniquely punitive and murderous sanctions-largely secular, sovereign and legally independent state. It had no problems with leaky borders, suicide bombers, terrorists-apart from CIA funded ones who occasionally, but rarely slipped through-streets were safe to walk, night and day and the structures of a normal, structured society, functioned within the constraints of the embargo. Certainly political dissent was not an option, as with many of Britain and America's allies across the globe. With an estimated sixty thousand prisoners now in Iraq's jails-5-most at unknown sites and charged with nothing, with state torture, rape, murder and infanticide a norm, disease and hunger rampant, the occupation for most of the Iraqi population is a daily nightmare endured in a vast gulag. Iraq, as Donald Rumsfeld rightly claims, is not a 'quagmire', that is 'a soft wet area of land which gives away under the feet', not much of that in Iraq. If troops stay, Iraq will make Viet Nam look like a stroll in the park. 'Let them come, we Iraqis are used to sacrifice ... we have been defeating invaders for centuries' similar refrains were heard across Iraq, in the months before the invasion. As US officials crowed of a 'cakewalk' in April 2003 and the Iraqi army 'fighting like demons with weapons which should have been in a military museum'-as a military friend remarked-they simply faded away to join the population in fighting the invaders guerrilla style, a tactic used throughout history to defeat a mightier military. In Jordan, days before the invasion, I joined a group of Jordanians in a local cafe. The talk, fear for and anger about the now inevitable attack, was of Iraq. 'There is something the Americans don't realize', said one of the group. 'No matter what numbers, what weapons, how long they stay, they will not conquer Iraq unless they kill every last man, woman and child.' The medical journal Lancet upper estimate is of one hundred thousand Iraqi civilian dead to January this year. Nearly two and a half '9/11's' every two months-in a country that had nothing to do with that tragedy. The estimate is surely on the low side. Those not killed in towns raised to the ground, shot pursuing daily normalities, die of untreated illnesses, water which is a biological weapon. Mesopotamia's mass graves are ever spreading under falling tears. 'They have left my sweet Afghanistan a poisoned burial ground', said Dr. Mohammed Daud Miraki, 6, whose seemingly forgotten country has suffered a similar fate. its most ancient mosque is also on the World Monument Fund's publication. He could be also speaking of Iraq. As Prime Minister Blair's son Euan, having just majored in ancient history-a gift to the world his father has largely helped destroy-heads to Washington to work his Dad's pal's Administration, that Administration needs to make a rapid and major decision. Is their outcome for Iraq to leave and return the country's sovereignty, or will Iraq become another 'final solution.' 1. They came to Baghdad, Sinan Antoun, Al Ahram Weekly, April 17-23rd 2003. 2. Crimes of War, by Roy Gutman and David Rieff, pub. W.W. Norton and Company. 3. www.brusselstribunal.org 4. Last Round by Mark Nicholl, pub. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2005. 5. Dahr Jamail, Testimony, World Tribunal on Iraq www.brusselstribunal.org 6. Author interview. Dr. Miraki's website-www.afghandufund.org Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. -------- landmines Australia Pledges $75 Million to Landmine Fight REUTERS LAOS: August 1, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/31862/story.htm VIENTIANE - Australia will spend A$75 million (US$57 million) over five years to remove landmines and unexploded bombs mainly in Cambodia and Laos, a victim of US bombing in the Vietnam War. "This is a part of the world that has suffered from war over a long period of time," Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific security conference in the Lao capital, Vientiane. Cambodia and Laos, per capita the world's most bombed country, would get most of the new money for de-mining and victim assistance, Downer told reporters. "We'll also be pursuing programmes in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq," he said. At least 20,000 people -- mostly men and children -- are killed or maimed every year by unexploded munitions and it is worst in Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia, Cambodia, Eritrea, Iraq, Laos, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Sudan. Vast areas of Cambodia were seeded with Chinese and Russian-made landmines during the Vietnam War and the decades of civil conflict which ensued, including the Khmer Rouge genocide. In Laos, where some 2 million tonnes of bombs were dropped during the Indochina conflict, scores are killed or maimed each year, many of them children, by unexploded ordnance. Six years after the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel mines came into effect, activists say governments are doing far too little to clear up unexploded bombs and leftover landmines. More than 140 countries have ratified the Ottawa Convention that commits them to an immediate halt to the production and use of landmines, destroy stockpiles and clear their territories of them within a decade. Most are way behind schedule. But more than 42 others -- notably the United States, Russia, India, Pakistan and China -- have refused even to sign and still hold vast reserves of landmines. ($US1-A$1.32) -------- un Bush Appoints John Bolton As U.S. Ambassador To UN Chris Noon, 08.01.05, 1:20 PM ET Forbes http://www.forbes.com/2005/08/01/bolton-bush-UN-cx_cn_0801autofacescan06.html NEW YORK - Nota bene, United Nations members: John Bolton doesn't do carrots on sticks--but he is able to administer a dose of "tough love," according to his supporters. For President George W. Bush has appointed the uncompromising Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, claiming that Democrats' "shameful delaying tactics" had forced him to bypass Congress. Under the terms of the controversial "recess appointment," Bolton--a quondam critic of the UN--will serve at the organization until January 2007. "This post is too important to leave vacant any longer," opined President Bush, citing Bolton's extensive experience in foreign affairs. The White House had been anxious to install a UN representative before the September opening of the General Assembly. Accepting the role, Bolton said one of his aims was to re-sculpt the UN into a "stronger, more effective organization, true to the ideals of its founders." Moustachioed Bolton has both his admirers and detractors: Few doubt Bolton is incredibly hard-working and intelligent, even if the Yale University-educated lawyer has a history of putting noses out of joint. Groups opposing his nomination call attention to footage of Bolton saying that there is "no such thing" as the UN and claiming the U.S. to be the globe's "only real power." He has also been strongly critical of countries like North Korea and Iran. One supporter was quoted in published reports as saying that Bolton could offer "a dose of tough love, to an organization very much in need of it." -------- us Cheney Calls For US to Nuke Iran Greg Szymanski/American Free Press | August 2 2005 http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/020805nukeiran.htm A number of political observers and activists today sounded “a red alert” after allegations surfaced this week that Vice President Dick Cheney has ordered Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to make contingency plans for a nuclear strike against Iran in the aftermath of another “9-11 type attack” on the United States. Cheney’s orders first surfaced in an article by Philip Geraldi in the Aug 1, 2005, issue of American Conservative. Geraldi was unavailable for comment, but excerpts of the article went on to say: “Vice President Cheney’s office has specifically told the Pentagon that the military should be prepared for an attack on Iran in the immediate aftermath of ‘another 9-11.’ ” However, that’s “not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States,” notes Geraldi’s article. The purported statement was then distributed widely as a number of political observers have issued “worldwide” warning statements,” declaring Cheney’s order to be interpreted as “sounding the bell for World War III.” GUNS OF AUGUST In response to Cheney’s order, one outspoken political activist issued an Internet notice covering the time period of August 2005, saying: “Vice President Dick Cheney, with the full collusion of the circles of British Prime Minister Tony Blair unleashed the recently exposed plans to stage a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against Iran. “The danger of such a mad, Hitler-in-the-bunker action from the Cheney circles would be even further heightened were the United States Congress to stick with its present schedule, and go into recess on July 30 until Sept. 4. With Congress out of Washington, the Cheney-led White House would almost certainly unleash a “Guns of August” attack on Iran.” And as reported several months ago, La Rouche said the Bush Administration, under CONPLAN 8022, had already placed the relevant “mini-nukes” under the control of theater military commanders, as part of a new global strike doctrine, a doctrine originally conceived when Cheney was secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush. --- Deep Background - Cheney v. Iran August 1, 2005 Issue The American Conservative By Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, partner in Cannistraro Associates http://amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. ---- Louisiana National Guard Wants Equipment to Come Back From Iraq Yunji de Nies August 1, 2005, 9:07 PM CDT WGNO-TV New Orleans http://abc26.trb.com/news/natguard08012005,0,4504131.story?coll=wgno-news-1 JACKSON BARRACKS -- When members of the Louisiana National Guard left for Iraq in October, they took a lot equipment with them. Dozens of high water vehicles, humvees, refuelers and generators are now abroad, and in the event of a major natural disaster that, could be a problem. "The National Guard needs that equipment back home to support the homeland security mission," said Lt. Colonel Pete Schneider with the LA National Guard. Col. Schneider says the state has enough equipment to get by, and if Louisiana were to get hit by a major hurricane, the neighboring states of Mississippi, Alabama and Florida have all agreed to help. "As Governor Bush did for Ivan, after they were hit so many times, he just maxed all of his resources out, he reached out to Louisiana and we sent 200 national guardsmen to help support in recovery efforts," Col. Schneider said. Members of the Houma-based 256th Infantry will be returning in October, but it could be much longer before the rest of their equipment comes home. "You've got combatant commanders over there who need it they say they need it, they don't want to lose what they have, and we certainly understand that it's a matter it's a matter of us educating that combatant commander, we need it back here as well," Col. Schneider said. And even if commanders in Iraq release the equipment, getting it home takes months. "It's just the process of identifying which equipment we're bringing home, bringing it down to Kuwait, loading it on ships or aircraft however we're gonna get it back here and then either railing it in or trucking it in, so we're talking a significant amount of time before that equipment is back home," Schneider said. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- drug war Pot Growing on Public Lands Fires California Lawmakers' Wrath WASHINGTON, DC, August 1, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2005/2005-08-01-09.asp#anchor1 Marijuana cultivation on public lands in California has some members of the state's Congressional delegation smoldering. Representatives Jerry Lewis, George Radanovich and Mary Bono, all Republicans, and Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, Friday called on the National Park Service to address the problem of illegal marijuana cultivation on public lands. Separately, Feinstein, Lewis and Radanovich urged the U.S. Forest Service to take similar action. In a letter to National Park Service Director Fran Mainella, the legislators write, "We are stunned by the fact that in 2004 alone, authorities seized 200,000 marijuana plants worth approximately $800 million dollars in a single California county, Tulare County. Most of these marijuana plants were cultivated, presumably by individuals linked to Mexican drug cartels, in both the Sequoia National Park and Sequoia National Forest. "National Park Rangers have reported that many of these individuals engaged in cultivating marijuana plants on these public lands are armed with semi-automatic pistols and assault rifles - unquestionably posing a grave threat to park resources, visitors, employees, and residents of surrounding communities," the lawmakers write. "These drug growers and traders are utilizing parts of Joshua Tree National Park and the Mojave National Preserve as thoroughfares for marijuana drug smuggling into Mexico," they write. "Public land marijuana cultivation has become one of the most profitable moneymakers for these Mexican drug cartels." The California lawmakers say they are concerned that the House-Senate Conference Committee on the FY 2006 Interior Appropriations bill did not earmark staff positions to address this problem, "in deference to the Service's need for flexibility in allocating staff resources." "We now ask that you utilize that flexibility to apply sufficient law enforcement resources towards ending illegal drug cultivation in the National Parks," they wrote. In a nearly identical letter to U.S. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth, the California legislators ask that marijuana cultivation in the Sequoia National Forest and Sequoia National Park be ended. The legislators asked the National Park Service Director to come up with a multi-year plan to resolve the problem, including an estimate of the extent of this criminal activity, what additional law enforcement personnel are needed and coordination with other law enforcement agencies, and plans for rehabilitation of the park resources damaged by the marijuana plantations. -------- POLITICS -------- propaganda wars Ex-CIA official's remark is wrong August 1, 2005 BY ROBERT NOVAK, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak01.html A statement attributed to the former CIA spokesman indicating that I deliberately disregarded what he told me in writing my 2003 column about Joseph Wilson's wife is just plain wrong. Though frustrated, I have followed the advice of my attorneys and written almost nothing about the CIA leak over two years because of a criminal investigation by a federal special prosecutor. The lawyers also urged me not to write this. But the allegation against me is so patently incorrect and so abuses my integrity as a journalist that I feel constrained to reply. In the course of a front-page story in last Wednesday's Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei quoted ex-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow describing his testimony to the grand jury. In response to my question about Valerie Plame Wilson's role in former ambassador Wilson's trip to Niger, Harlow told me she "had not authorized the mission." Harlow was quoted as later saying to me "the story Novak had related to him was wrong." This gave the impression I ignored an official's statement that I had the facts wrong but wrote it anyway for the sake of publishing the story. That would be inexcusable for any journalist and particularly a veteran of 48 years in Washington. The truth is otherwise, and that is why I feel compelled to write this column. My column of July 14, 2003, asked why the CIA in 2002 sent Wilson, a critic of President Bush, to Niger to investigate an Italian intelligence report of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases. All the subsequent furor was caused by three sentences in the sixth paragraph: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA [Harlow] says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him." There never was any question of me talking about Mrs. Wilson "authorizing." I was told she "suggested" the mission, and that is what I asked Harlow. His denial was contradicted in July 2004 by a unanimous Senate Intelligence Committee report. The report said Wilson's wife "suggested his name for the trip." It cited an internal CIA memo from her saying "my husband has good relations" with officials in Niger and "lots of French contacts," adding they "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." A State Department analyst told the committee that Mrs. Wilson "had the idea" of sending Wilson to Africa. So, what was "wrong" with my column as Harlow claimed? There was nothing incorrect. He told the Post reporters he had "warned" me that if I "did write about it her name should not be revealed." That is meaningless. Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as "Valerie Plame" by reading her husband's entry in "Who's Who in America." Harlow said to the Post that he did not tell me Mrs. Wilson "was undercover because that was classified." What he did say was, as I reported in a previous column, "she probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties.' " According to CIA sources, she was brought home from foreign assignments in 1997, when agency officials feared she had been "outed" by the traitor Aldrich Ames. I have previously said that I never would have written those sentences if Harlow, then-CIA Director George Tenet or anybody else from the agency had told me that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger herself or anybody. The recent first disclosure of secret grand jury testimony set off a news media feeding frenzy centered on this obscure case. Joseph Wilson was discarded a year ago by the Kerry presidential campaign after the Senate committee reported much of what he said "had no basis in fact." The re-emerged Wilson is now accusing the senators of "smearing" him. I eagerly await the end of this investigation when I may be able to correct other misinformation about me and the case. -------- ENERGY Congress passes energy bill; next steps From: "Michael Mariotte" Date: Mon Aug 1, 2005 2:40pm As you surely know by know, the energy bill has passed the Congress. In a show of incredible contempt for the American people and their values, the final Senate vote last Friday was 74-26. The bill takes US energy policy in exactly the opposite direction the American people have demanded in poll after poll. Instead of making renewables and improved energy efficiency the centerpiece of an energy strategy that can provide clean, affordable energy and address climate change, the Congress has chosen to take billions of your dollars and give them to the nuclear power, coal and oil industries. The result is that energy will continue to become more expensive and global warming will continue to get worse. The final Senate vote is below; the final House vote can be found at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll445.xml We encourage you to take a moment to "thank and spank" your Congressmembers. Write to them and let them know what you think of how they voted, and be sure to tell them this will be a determining factor in how you vote next election. Address for Senate: Hon.________, US Senate, Washington, DC 20510; for House: Hon.____________, US House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515. We don't yet know, of course, whether the billions of dollars in subsidies to the nuclear industry will result in attempts to actually build new reactors. We do know that if they try, we will do everything in our power to stop them! We also know that the energy issue will have to be revisited again, and soon. The climate crisis is an imperative, and real steps have to be taken to address it. Nuclear power is the most expensive and slowest method possible of reducing carbon emissions; a nuclear program large enough to make any difference at all would divert virtually all funding from the alternatives that do work. We can address global warming or we can build new reactors: we can't do both. So, we are continuing to collect signatures on our Petition for a Sustainable Energy Future at www.nirs.org and will present them to the new Congress in 2007 in a new effort to redirect energy policy. That gives us-and you-lots of time to collect more signatures! Please keep them rolling in! And we hope to be holding a series of regional meetings over the next several months with grassroots activists to develop new strategies for the new political realities. The first one will be in Conway, New Hampshire this weekend, contact pgunter@... for information. Thanks for all of your help and support! Michael Mariotte Nuclear Information and Resource Service nirsnet@nirs.org YEAs ---74 Akaka (D-HI) Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Bingaman (D-NM) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Burr (R-NC) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Dayton (D-MN) DeMint (R-SC) DeWine (R-OH) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Inouye (D-HI) Isakson (R-GA) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McConnell (R-KY) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Stevens (R-AK) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) NAYs ---26 Biden (D-DE) Boxer (D-CA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Corzine (D-NJ) Dodd (D-CT) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Gregg (R-NH) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kyl (R-AZ) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Sununu (R-NH) Wyden (D-OR) -------- alternative energy Energy Bill a Disappointment, and Opportunity, for Wind, Solar and Biofuel Boosters August 01, 2005 — By Brad Foss, Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=8387 WASHINGTON — America's fledgling renewable energy industry won't be significantly transformed by the energy bill Congress passed Friday. To the disappointment of environmentalists and those with a financial stake in alternatives to fossil fuels, most of the $14.5 billion in tax breaks will help producers and users of oil, natural gas and coal. Still, boosters of wind, solar and biofuels said their tiny segment of the market will also benefit from the legislation, as will consumers looking to conserve fuel at home or on the road. "This bill is a major disappointment from an energy-policy perspective," said Dan Reicher, a former assistant secretary in the Energy Department during the Clinton administration and president of New Energy Capital Corp., a venture capital firm that specializes in renewables. But while Reicher would have preferred legislation that mandates reductions in oil consumption and limits the output of carbon dioxide from power plants, he said the compromise bill "does provide some useful incentives for investors in clean energy." Those who voted in favor of the bill and representatives of the fossil fuel industry would agree with Reicher's latter point, though they complain that the new energy policy does not go far enough to promote more domestic onshore and offshore drilling for oil and natural gas. Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Calif.) called the bill "a good first step" in addressing the country's rising dependence on foreign oil, the same description used by the American Petroleum Institute, a Washington-based trade group. In sheer dollar terms, the biggest clean energy perk in the bill was a two-year extension of a tax credit critical to companies that produce power from renewable sources -- an allocation worth $2.7 billion. The bulk of those funds will promote the construction of new wind farms, a boon to utilities and wind turbine manufacturers, while the remainder will assist biomass, geothermal and hydroelectric companies. "Given the relative size and political weight of our industry, I feel pretty good," said Randall Swisher, executive director of the American Wind Energy Association, which estimates that some $5 billion in new wind projects will go forward over the next two years. Without the tax credits these projects would not go forward and hundreds of jobs would have been lost, Swisher said. Nevertheless, "with this bill, I don't see any fundamental changes in the direction of U.S. energy policy," Swisher said. The bill does create a new category of tax credits known as clean renewable energy bonds, or CREBs, that have an estimated value of $400 million. These tax-exempt bonds can be issued by local governments or electricity cooperatives to help pay for wind, solar, biomass and other specified projects. An additional $194 million will go toward the two-year extension of excise- and income-tax credits for manufacturers of biodiesel, a soybean derivative that is blended with regular diesel. "Any time we can use one of our products as a fuel... that's a win for agriculture," said Darryl Brinkmann of Carlyle, Ill., a full-time corn and soybean farmer and the chairman of the National Biodiesel Board. Brinkmann and other farmers also stand to gain from a provision that mandates the annual use of 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol, a corn derivative, by 2012. Yet advocates of renewables said the bill is equally notable -- and disappointing -- for what it does not include. There are no minimum requirements for clean power production in the United States and no disincentives to help curb fossil-fuel consumption, such as automobile fuel-economy standards or mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions. "A strong energy policy needs both carrots and sticks," Reicher said. "But this is a bill that's mostly about carrots." The Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty on climate change that went into effect in February, caps the amount of carbon dioxide that power plants and fuel-intensive manufacturers in more than two dozen countries are allowed to emit. The United States is not bound by the treaty. While the bulk of the financial rewards in the energy bill are aimed at corporations, there are a handful of provisions that will make it more economical for homeowners and motorists to reduce their energy consumption and invest in cleaner fuels. Solar enthusiasts may have gotten the most significant shot in the arm of anyone in the renewable sector, not in absolute dollar terms but with regard to the fact that homeowners who install photovoltaic systems will now be eligible for federal financial assistance for the first time in 20 years. The bill includes a federal tax credit worth 30 percent of the cost of residential solar panels after taking into account any assistance from the state. The credit is capped at $2,000. Rhone Resch, president of the Washington-based Solar Energy Industry Association, said the tax credit would give "individuals support in making a purchase that will improve the United States' energy independence." Similarly, close to $875 million in tax credits will be made available to those who buy hybrid gas-electric vehicles before 2010. A person buying a Toyota Prius, for instance, will receive a tax credit of at least $2,500, according to Toyota Motor Corp. spokeswoman Martha Voss. The hybrid vehicle tax credit has its limits, however. Each manufacturer can apply the tax credit to just 60,000 vehicles and Toyota sells roughly 150,000 hybrids per year. "If we had our way, there would have been a cap of 200,000," Voss said. "But for hybrids just to be in the bill, we're thrilled." About $555 million is available in the form of tax credits to homeowners who buy energy-efficient fans, furnaces and hot water boilers. There are also tax credits available for manufacturers of dishwashers, refrigerators and other appliances, as well as commercial builders, if they meet certain energy-efficiency standards. David Goldstein, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's energy program, said the bill is well-intentioned with regard to spurring energy conservation among homeowners and businesses, but he fears the results will be minimal because the tax credits are only good for two years. "It's just very frustrating," he said. Source: Associated Press ---- Vermont Could See First Wind Power Project in National Forest August 01, 2005 — By David Gram, Associated Press http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/07/30/business/news/21_07_527_29_05.txt READSBORO, Vt. — The evergreen trees of the Green Mountain National Forest in southern Vermont could soon be dwarfed by 370-foot-tall wind turbines. A company wants to build up to 30 of the turbines in the forest in what would be the first-ever wind power project on U.S. Forest Service land. The project would produce enough electricity to power 14,000 to 16,000 homes. The Forest Service is expected to take up to 18 months to decide whether to approve the project by Deerfield Wind LLC. Environmental groups have strongly opposed moves to open more federal lands to people who want to extract energy from them, whether oil, natural gas or coal. But wind energy, a relatively benign and pollution-free way to make electricity, is a different story. "We're not against wind power. We think that renewable energy is a promising and useful thing," said Richard Andrews of the group Green Mountain Forest Watch. But he said his group has yet to take a position on the proposal. There are other concerns, including whether the project will disrupt the habitat of black bears or migratory birds in the forest. "The Forest Service doesn't have well developed protocols on wind power development," said Gina Owens, district ranger for the U.S. Forest Service But she added that it is borrowing guidance from the Bureau of Land Management, which last month released a set of policies governing wind power development on its vast land holdings in the West. In general, the BLM policy says wind power development is to be encouraged, and calls for changes designed to do so on parcels in nine western states. John Zimmerman said he thinks the site of his company's proposed project is close to ideal. The National Forest ridges where Deerfield Wind LLC wants to build its wind towers are like bookends to a privately owned tract where nearly a decade ago a Vermont power company built the first utility-scale wind project east of the Mississippi. Green Mountain Power Corp.'s 11 towers -- a bit more than half as tall as the ones proposed -- have been well received by area residents, Zimmerman said. On a hot, calm afternoon last week, there was just enough wind -- the threshold is 10 mph -- to get the Green Mountain Power site's 2-ton, 64-foot-long, fiberglass blades, painted black to shed ice in winter, turning enough to make electricity. School and other groups are frequent visitors to the site, including those concerned about proposals for wind power projects in their areas. "It's amazing to see people come in and say, `Ah, that's not so bad,'" said Martha Staskus, Zimmerman's co-worker at Vermont Environmental Research Associates, with which Deerfield Wind is affiliated.