NucNews - August 12, 2005



<a name="nuclear"></a>

-------- NUCLEAR 

Nuke Kids On The Bloc

Friday 12th August 2005 UK SCHNews

http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news507.htm

“US nuclear strategy is driven by a paranoid fear about the county’s vulnerability to weapons of mass destruction (WMD); pressure from the military-industrial complex for raising defence spending and creating new uses for nuclear weapons and the United States’ aspiration to remain the world’s sole superpower with an unparalleled nuclear might.” - Praful Bidwai, co-founder of the Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament

Last weekend was the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and what better way for the world to commemorate than by ignoring global treaties and building more weapons of mass destruction.

A “total war strategy” in the name of global domination with any peaceful alternatives ignored. Sound familiar? The American - Japanese war (1941-1945) witnessed the slaughter of 100,000s of people and many of these deaths were perfectly avoidable, especially those at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Gung-ho US politicians and military types were just as concerned with Soviet expansion as they were by any threat posed by Japan. The White House knew it needed to act to curb Soviet ambitions in Europe, and war would provide an ideal opportunity to block in Russia from East and West. Trouble was, 80% of the US population was against getting involved. In November 1940 the President told his subjects that none of “America’s sons” would fight in a foreign war, “unless attacked”. One year later the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the US was at war.

US military commanders had had a pretty good idea of what Japanese forces were up to, as by October 1940 American spies had cracked many of the codes used by the Japanese fleet. Japan had attacked China and was seeking access to oil in Southeast Asia, but was still willing to negotiate a way forward with the US that didn’t involve war. The White House was not interested. It refused to meet Japanese Ambassadors and instead handed them an ultimatum designed to humiliate them and force the Japanese to abide by US foreign policy requirements. The agreement was meant to “kick things over” as Secretary of State Cordell Hull admitted later. “We had no serious thought that Japan would accept.” Renowned American political commentator, essayist and novelist Gore Vidal says, “Received Opinion has it that the US was taken by surprise. Roosevelt was not - but apparently the unaware military commanders at Pearl Harbor were, and 3,000 men were killed in a single strike.”

Throughout 1945 Japanese envoys were making overtures across Europe: they would surrender if they could keep their Emperor. On July 18th 1945, the Emperor himself wrote a letter to the new President, Harry Truman, which was, in Truman’s words “looking for peace.” But again the White House wasn’t interested. They wanted to intimidate Stalin, show the world that they had a new all powerful weapon and use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a testing ground.

Walter Brown, special assistant to Secretary of State James Byrnes at the time of the bombings wrote in his diary in August 1945, “Truman wanted to drop the bomb, but why? To frighten Stalin, a suitable enemy for the US as it was about to metamorphose into a national security state at ‘perpetual war’ ‘for perpetual peace’”. The Japanese had been surrendering since the destruction of Tokyo by US bombers in May 1945. “If we’d been told that the war could have been concluded by then,” argues Gore Vidal, “I would have gone to work for the impeachment of a President who had wasted so many lives and destroyed so many cities in his power game with the Soviet Union, which led to half a century of unnecessary Cold War.” Some argue that killing 100,000s of Japanese civilians was necessary to end a world war, but instead it started a cold war - a world gripped with the fear that if the superpower leaders would be mad enough to drop the nukes once they could be mad enough to do it again.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

Fast forward 60 years and the US and UK governments are still at it. UK Plc is spending hundreds of millions of pounds at Aldermaston on a refit of the production line for nuclear warheads. A £12bn replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system has already been agreed. Washington is also planning to modify existing bomb designs to make ‘bunker-busters’ and is pushing ahead with Star Wars (see SchNEWS 494).But why do we need nukes? The justification for both countries’ nuclear defence systems was the threat of the Soviet Union - that’s gone, so who’s going to nuke us now? Fear not! “The War on Terror” will provide all the justification necessary.

Blair and Bush must have been too busy on the moral high ground to notice that by increasing stocks of nukes we are breaking international obligations, notably the commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The NPT works like this: the bulk of the world’s states promise not to develop nuclear weapons and accept a regime of physical inspections preventing military use of nuclear materials. In return, the five existing nuclear weapon states will initiate negotiations to eliminate them, and in the meantime, transfer no nuclear material/technology to non-nuclear weapon states. But at the NPT Review Conference in May, the US, led by John Bolton – under-secretary for arms control (someone had a good laugh over that one) - refused to even allow the other nations to draw up an agenda for discussion beforehand, which meant that 15 of the conference’s 20 working days were spent in wrangling over procedural points, principally the drafting of an agenda! (and you thought anarchists could never agree anything in meetings!) Two weeks ago, George Bush and the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed a new nuclear treaty. India is one of three states which possess nuclear weapons and refuses to sign the NPT. The treaty says it should be denied access to civil nuclear materials. But on July 18th, Bush announced that “as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, India should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states.” Four months before the meeting, the US lifted its South Asian arms embargo by selling Pakistan a fleet of F-16 aircraft, capable of a carrying a wide range of missiles, creating a need across the border in India for an anti-missile system - which US companies were only too happy to provide. This nuclear hypocrisy has not been lost on Iran, who the US is threatening because of their alleged plans to build a bomb. Meanwhile, the US opens diplomatic relationships with North Korea, another member of the “Axis of Evil”. Why the difference in approach? As journalist George Monbiot points out “If you have oil, but aren’t developing a bomb (Iraq), you get invaded. If you have oil but are developing a bomb (Iran) you get threatened with invasion, but it probably won’t happen. If you don’t have oil, but do have the bomb, the US representative will fly to your country and open negotiations (North Korea).”Achin Vanaik, professor of political science at Delhi University argues that the US thinks it’s exceptional, “It can do no wrong. American nuclear weapons are good nukes, they will be used to good ends; others’ nukes are bad.”

60 years after America dropped some of those ‘good nukes’ on two Japanese cities the world remains vulnerable to mass destruction from more than 30,000 nuclear weapons still in place, four thousand of them on hair-trigger alert. We can only guess the threats posed by climate change and environmental collapse, but we know from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the price paid for nuclear war.

* Find out more about why the US wanted war with Japan in Gore Vidal’s, ‘Dreaming War’ Clairview 2003

* The Hiroshima/Nagaski cover up http://www.alternet.org/story/23915



-------- africa

Nuclear death probe - but South African family in the dark

August 12 2005 at 12:02PM
South Africa Star
By Shaun Smillie

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=14&art_id=vn20050812070251329C972066

For four years, Clive Motha has wanted to know why his son Victor collapsed in the dining room of their Mamelodi house.

Now there is an inquiry into Victor's death.

But more than a month after the investigation was announced, Motha hasn't even heard from the investigators. In fact, he learnt about the investigation only from an article in The Star.

"I haven't heard from these people as yet," he said.

On June 30, the SA Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) announced the launch of an independent investigation into allegations - by environmental watchdog organisation Earthlife Africa - that several former employees at the Pelindaba nuclear facility, near Tshwane, were suffering from illnesses caused by radiation and other chemical exposure.

Mogwera Khoathane, the consultant leading the investigation, stressed that the inquest would review both the previous internal and external investigations into Victor's death.

This week, Khoathane announced the team he had chosen to conduct the investigation. It includes five members: Annanda How, Shaun Guy, Mokgothu Brian Nkonoane, Dr Monde Ntwasa and Professor Barney de Villiers.

While this could finally mean closure for Motha and his family, he does not hold much hope for the investigation.

"It is just going to be a repeat. They (Necsa) didn't return calls. Those people ignore you, I tried a lawyer for help, and still nothing," said Motha.

In fact, Motha is in debt, and he owes his lawyer money.

Victor was fresh out of Pretoria Technikon when he landed a job at Pelindaba. He had a diploma in chemical engineering and was given a contract to work at the nuclear facility.

"He was always a brilliant boy. He used to help others in their studies," Motha said.

On the day of his death, Victor arrived home from work as usual. He did not tell his father that something out of the ordinary had happened to him that day.

He was eating his dinner when he suddenly started vomiting.

"We rushed him to hospital, and there he died," Motha said.

Victor's death certificate, which his father keeps together with a few of his other belongings, states that his death is under investigation.

What Motha has been able to glean over the years about his son's death was that Victor was exposed to fluorine, a highly toxic gas used to refine uranium.

Apparently 11 other workers who had been on shift with Victor were hospitalised and later discharged.

Shortly after Victor's death, the Motha family received a letter from then-minister of minerals and energy Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka. In it, she promised the family "that no stone will be left unturned in this investigation".

However, Motha says that is where the correspondence with the department of minerals and energy began and ended.

Simpiwe Msibi, a communications officer contracted to Khoathane, said: "I am not sure when our people will talk to Mr Motha."



-------- australia

Cautious support for nuclear waste dump from former ANSTO head

Friday, August 12, 2005. 4:22pm (AEST) Australian Broadcasting

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1436555.htm

The former head of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has broken her silence on the prospect of a radioactive waste dump in the Northern Territory.

Helen Garnett is now the vice-chancellor of the Territory's Charles Darwin University but was formerly the chief executive officer of ANSTO.

Until now she has refused to weigh into the debate about storing the Commonwealth's nuclear waste in the Territory.

But Ms Garnett has suggested the dump is not necessarily a bad thing.

"I think there are technical issues which I'm quite happy to comment on in private to people but this is an issue that I think is being discussed broadly - it's got a number of dimensions. I think technically I can tell you that in the right place waste can be stored and handled," she said.


-------- britain

£56bn bill on the cards for getting rid of nuclear waste

Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Friday August 12, 2005
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1547605,00.html?gusrc=rss

The cost of cleaning up more than 50 years of nuclear waste from Britain's power stations and military projects has risen by £8bn to £56bn and will rise further, Sir Anthony Cleaver, chairman of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, said yesterday.

If another 100 tonnes of plutonium plus thousands of tonnes of uranium stored at Sellafield, Cumbria, are also classified as waste, the bill will rise by a further £10bn.

The stored materials are currently guarded by armed men day and night because of the terrorist threat.

The authority showed its first strategy document yesterday after its launch in April as a quango charged with taking control of, and disposing of, the UK's nuclear waste.

One departure for existing nuclear policy is the wish to bring forward the clean-up for old reactor sites from between 80 and 100 years to 25 years.

The authority believes that if the sites are left for longer future generations may not have the expertise for dismantling them safely. If the job is done more quickly, it will also provide continuity of employment and allow the sites to be used for other purposes, possibly even the building of new reactors, although that would be a policy decision outside the authority's remit.

The authority is to open a new low-level waste depository at Dounreay, and find a replacement for the existing dump at Drigg, in Cumbria, which is filling up and will end up inundated because of the rising sea level.

Although his role is, in theory, independent of government, Sir Anthony made clear that certain key decisions - for example, the future of the plutonium stockpile, and that of Thorp, the currently crippled thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield - would be taken by the Department of Trade and Industry. "We can give advice but the government makes the decisions in these key areas," he said.

Although the authority has taken over ownership of the reprocessing works and other British Nuclear Fuels' assets, and with the income is supposed to partly fund the clean up, the decision on whether these plants continue to operate at all rests with the government.

The Thorp plant has contracts with utilities in Japan and several European countries to reprocess spent fuel into plutonium and uranium. Because international relations are involved, the government will not allow the authority to decide on the economics of these operations.

The government is subsidising Thorp with £200m a year in cash even though the plant was put out of action in May by a leak, and no permission has been given for a restart.

Yesterday the authority said that whatever happened Thorp would never run long enough to deal with the thousands of tonnes of spent fuel from Britain's existing advanced gas cooled reactors.

The authority is starting an urgent assessment of how to deal with this fuel. At present, it is taken to Sellafield in rail flasks and kept in giant cooling ponds before reprocessing. It seems likely this system will be abandoned but whether the change will involve dry storage of fuel at Sellafield, has not been decided.

The future of the yet to be fully commissioned mixed oxide fuel (Mox) plant, where new fuel is made from plutonium and depleted uranium, is also not yet decided.

The government has claimed the plant has a substantial order book, but Ian Roxburgh, chief executive, said yesterday these were not firm orders but "letters of intent" that depended on the plant operating properly. So far it had not proved it could.

Sir Anthony also outlined the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's plans to privatise management of the Magnox stations and various sites now run by the UK Atomic Energy Authority, and British Nuclear Group, formerly British Nuclear Fuels. These organisations, or consortiums of other engineering and nuclear firms, would be expected to compete.

Comments on the NDA strategy document are requested by November 11 (see report at NDA)

----

Bill to clear nuclear sites rises to £60bn

By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 12/08/2005) UK Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/12/nda12.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/12/ixhome.html

The cost of decommissioning Britain's ageing nuclear installations is expected to rise to more than £60 billion.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) yesterday estimated that dismantling and cleaning up the 20 sites, including 11 nuclear power stations, will cost at least £8 billion more than the previous estimate of £48 billion. If the country's stockpiles of plutonium are reclassified as waste because of the lack of demand for its use to make fuel, the bill could grow by up to another £10 billion.

The new estimate comes at a sensitive time, with ministers engaged in talks on whether a new generation of nuclear power stations should be built to replace Britain's ageing existing reactors and coal-powered stations.

The NDA, launching a three-month public consultation on its decommissioning proposals, also stated that it wanted to speed up the process.

The current plans for the clean-up of the 11 Magnox reactor sites, four of which are still functioning, suggest the process will take 100 years.

The NDA report proposes that they can be decommissioned and their sites cleared within 25 years, with the clean-up at Sellafield completed within 75 years.

The 20 civil nuclear sites include power stations, research facilities, and fuel manufacturing and enrichment plants.

The independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is due to deliver a report to ministers next summer on how existing nuclear waste should be dealt with. Yesterday it announced that it had reduced the list of potential solutions to long-term interim storage, deep geological disposal, phased deep geological disposal, and near-surface disposal.

Tony Juniper, the executive director of Friends of the Earth, said nuclear power was "an expensive liability with a long track record of huge cost overruns".

A spokesman for the British Nuclear Group, a subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels that specialises in decommissioning, said: "I would expect that in 10 years' time the actual amount will be a lot lower as contractors compete to do it more cheaply."

----

Nuclear lethargy
Why is the government dragging its heels on building new nuclear power stations?

by Joe Kaplinsky
12 August 2005

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CACF7.htm

For all the worry about the future of energy supply - from running out of oil and gas to global warming - you might think that the UK government would be more enthusiastic about building a new generation of nuclear power stations. Yet while sporadic sounds of enthusiasm emerge from Blair and his advisors, official policy remains firmly agnostic. The justification is that nuclear power is a touchy subject with the public, and that endorsement by mistrusted politicians would be the kiss of death.

There is certainly a public case to be made for nuclear power, which might start with some basic facts. According to a Populus poll published in The Times on 8 August, 79 per cent of people believe that renewable energy such as wind and wave could replace imports of oil and gas. Only 18 per cent believe that nuclear power could play that role (1). But at current rates of growth it would take three decades for renewables to replace the present contribution of nuclear, let alone the contribution of gas (2).

The accompanying Times Leader was to the point: 'so long as politicians fight shy of the topic, as Labour has done, so long will people suspect the worst… all the British public has to go by is an unsatisfactorily ambiguous 2003 White Paper that, without ruling out nuclear energy, led people to believe, mistakenly, that energy-saving combined with renewable energy could plug the yawing gap between supply and demand.' (3)

The soul searching by politicians over public acceptance is in reality a projection of their own anxieties. No doubt a proposal to build new nuclear power stations would prove controversial. But that is to say no more than that there is an argument to be won. Instead of argument we are offered the 'fullest public consultation'.

In contrast to the government's non-position on nuclear power, it is happy to hector us about the need to change our lifestyles and break our 'addiction' to energy consumption. Such harassment hardly seems likely to win public favour.

Perhaps the government hopes that one day it will work up the courage to propose expanding nuclear - expressed in its commitment to 'keep the nuclear option open' (4). The official view is that a 'range of skills and research initiatives will have a key role to play in maintaining the expertise needed to keep nuclear power as a future option'. But jargon-laden waffle will not inspire a new generation of nuclear engineers. How can we expect young people to choose a career in the field when the government cannot even say with confidence that nuclear power has a future?

The Department of Trade and Industry nuclear energy webpage uses for a logo a tastefully lit radiation hazard warning sign (5). Unfortunately many working in the nuclear industry seem little more enthusiastic. The latest research breakthrough reported by the UK Atomic Energy Authority is 'permanent' paper to record the details of nuclear waste for future generations. The invention is modelled on scrolls from the time of the Pharaohs, on the grounds that they survived the destruction of ancient Egypt (6). The idea that scientists should spend their time enabling civilisation to rise to the next level, rather than planning for its collapse, seems not to enjoy the same popularity.

Instead of trying to put its case, the nuclear industry is backing new laws against protesters. British Energy is enthusiastic about proposals by Roger Brunt, the UK director of civil nuclear security, to outlaw unauthorised entry to nuclear sites. Greenpeace's response, that there are enough laws already, seems reasonable for once (7).

Nuclear power has come to embody many of today's fears about the use of technology

Greenpeace added that 'if terrorists targeted a nuclear power station with its stores of dangerous radioactive material, they could spread fallout for miles around… ultimately we have to stop producing nuclear waste' (8). Here is an argument that could have some resonance with the public. British Energy might consider whether passing laws to stifle opposition is the most effective way to counter it. It might also consider whether it is Greenpeace or the government that has spread the idea that we should reorganise Britain around the threat of terror.

The private sector is unable to take a lead in championing nuclear energy. An industry association, the Energy Intensive Users Group, met with energy minister Malcolm Wicks in July 2005 to express its concern over seeming policy drift. After the meeting Stuart Chambers, the chief executive of glass manufacturer Pilkington, told the Telegraph that the 'one thing industry can't do without government help is embrace alternatives like nuclear energy. The one issue I think that the government has underestimated is the capacity of the public and of voters to embrace nuclear' (9).

In part, industry's reluctance to go it alone on nuclear is a simple reflection of the leading role that the state plays in regulating energy production. Despite privatisations, practical decisions on the future of nuclear power are in government hands.

It is also the case that many are put off by the long-term nature of the investment required by nuclear power. The large up-front costs of a nuclear power station form a larger part of the investment than the ongoing costs of supplying fuel. This sort of proposition is not highly valued in today's short-termist business world.

Nuclear power has now become a political issue. It has come to embody many of today's fears that the use of technology is an inherently risky and destructive business. This is an outlook that is holding back social and technological experimentation, and it deserves to be challenged.

It is clear that the pursuit of nuclear technology is essential for many other fields, from medicine to materials science, and that it is a tremendous energy resource. Its economic potential will be unclear until society decides that it is worth finding out. So long as our politicians are even more afraid of being honest with the public than they are of nuclear meltdown, this is unlikely to happen.

Joe Kaplinsky is a patent and technology analyst.



-------- canada

OPG cancels Pickering repairs

By ROMA LUCIW, Toronto Globe and Mail
Friday, August 12, 2005 Updated at 12:35 PM EDT

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050812.wopg0812/BNStory/Business/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20050812.wopg0812

Ontario Power Generation Inc. has decided not to refurbish units 2 and 3 at Pickering's A nuclear station, saying the job would cost too much even though the province is grappling with power shortages.

"We don't see a sound business case for returning units 2 and 3 to service," OPG chief executive Jim Hankinson said in a Friday release, adding that the move should "not be seen as a lack of confidence in nuclear power."

The OPG said it would have cost more than $2-billion to repair the two units. Additional funds would have been needed to keep them running, although the OPG said their life span was expected to last only seven to 10 years.

Instead of repairing the two units, the province's electricity generating agency said, it will "devote its resources and expertise to maximizing the performance" of its 10 existing nuclear units.

The decision not to restart the two units at the Pickering nuclear station comes at a time when the province is facing  a shortage of capacity and soaring energy prices. At the same time, demand is projected to keep rising as the province's population grows and construction of new buildings keeps booming.

The Ontario government, meantime, has a long-standing pledge to shut down its coal-fired generating stations.

On a high-demand day, the province consumes 25,000 megawatts of electricity, while on off-peak days it uses between 16,000 and 18,000 megawatts, a senior OPG official said. When they were running, the official said, Pickering's units 2 and 3, produced a combined 1,000 megawatts of power.

The advantage of rebuilding the two Pickering units, about 30 kilometres east of downtown Toronto, is that they could have been producing power within three years, the official said.

OPG's nuclear units produced almost 30 per cent of the power used by the province last year, the company said. In addition to Pickering, the company operates a nuclear power station at Darlington, 70 kilometres east of Toronto.

Ted Gruetzner, spokeman for the Ontario Energy Ministry, said the province is building two natural gas plants near Sarnia, as well as three natural gas plants in Mississauga. When they start operating, between 2007 and 2009, they will supply 2,200 megawatts a year.

Still, "supply is potentially tight over the next few years," Mr. Gruetzner said. Over the next few summers, people "will have to be more conscious and conserve power."

OPG said it has been studying the economics of returning units 2 and 3 — which have been idle since December, 1997 — to service for several months. OPG said Friday it found that while it was "technically feasible" and they could be run safely for several years, their physical condition would make them too expensive to repair.

"OPG's decision on units 2 and 3 is financially prudent and reflects our objective of keeping our costs as low as possible," Mr. Hankinson said.

In late 2003, the government fired the top three executives of publicly owned Ontario Power Generation for botching the restoration of the Unit 4 reactor at the Pickering A station, which was years late and millions of dollars over budget.

The OPG's Mr. Hankinson stressed Friday that the province is not turning away from nuclear power, saying "we are supporters" of nuclear stations for the province. "At this point, we are going to look carefully at life extension for the Pickering B units and for the Darlington Units," he said, not at building new nuclear units.

The company's board has advised the Ontario government of its decision.

The publicly owned utility returned the Pickering A unit 4 to service in 2003 and the refurbished unit 1 is expected to be in service in October at a projected cost of about $1-billion.

Units 2 and 3 have been maintained in a safe shutdown state since 1997, OPG said. Over the next two years the fuel and heavy water will be removed from the two units, which will be put into a long-term layup state.

Separately, OPG also reported that it earned $63-million or 25 cents in the three months ended June 30, compared with a loss of $41-million or 16 cents a share a year ago.

----

Canadian Premier wants nuclear to be part of a national energy plan
Lord says a consensus building at Banff

By Carl Davies
New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal
August 12, 2005  

http://www.canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050812/TPEBRIEF/308120100/-1/FRONTPAGE

Just a few hours into the premiers' meeting in Banff, Alta., Premier Bernard Lord was already feeling positive vibes from his fellow premiers.

The heads of the country's provincial governments have gathered in the resort town to discuss a number of issues.

Most of the talk revolves around finding ways to get the federal government to provide more money for programs that are provincial responsibilities.

During a short break after morning meetings and lunch with the U.S. Ambassador Mr. Lord said consensus was building on a number of issues after informal talks during a fun-filled train ride from Calgary to Banff on Wednesday and again during the morning meetings and lunch on Thursday.

Mr. Lord said the morning talks focused on transportation, energy and trade, while the softwood lumber dispute and border issues were the main items on the agenda at lunch.

On the energy front, Newfoundland's Danny Williams will head up a committee that will focus on developing a national energy strategy.

Mr. Lord's goal, as he stated before heading to Alberta, was to ensure nuclear energy is part a comprehensive Canadian energy plan.

"Nuclear must be a component," Mr. Lord reiterated, saying that other provinces with nuclear reactors closely followed the Point Lepreau saga in New Brunswick, where New Brunswick was unsuccessful in obtaining federal support for the refurbishment of the plant.

On transportation, Mr. Lord said a committee will work toward a national transportation policy that will focus on ensuring Ottawa pays its share to improve transportation corridors.

"In New Brunswick, we spend 100 per cent of gas tax revenues on transportation," Mr. Lord said.

He'd like to see Ottawa do the same with the revenue it collects from gas tax.

The U.S. Ambassador received an earful from the premiers on softwood lumber, after American politicians indicated they would essentially ignore a ruling made in Canada's favour this week in the ongoing dispute between the neighboring countries on tariffs on exported wood.

"He was hearing us very clearly," Mr. Lord said.

"We had a very good exchange." After the morning meetings - suppertime New Brunswick - the premiers had not yet touched on what is expected to be the main topic of this get together, post-secondary education.

Premier Lord said however there was plenty of informal discussion on the way to Banff.

The premier said there is support for his idea of a first minister's meeting on postsecondary education to discuss a dedicated federal fund for post-secondary education.

"I sense there will be a consensus," Mr. Lord said, adding there are differences between the premiers on an education fund that will not be worked out at this meeting.

For the time being, "we're focusing on commonality," Mr. Lord said.

Moving the post-secondary file forward is the top priority for the premier at these meetings.

He would like to see significant progress made toward establishing a federal fund for post-secondary students in the coming year.

Another hot topic at the premier's conference has been daylight savings time and whether the province's will follow the U.S. lead to establish an extra month of daylight savings time.

Most premiers, along with Mr. Lord, believe it makes sense to synchronize watches with our neighbours, given that they are our largest trading partner.

Saskatchewan is the only province that doesn't observe daylight savings, while Mr. Williams, whose province has its own unique time zone, said he doesn't care one way or the other.

Mr. Lord has also floated the more radical idea of making New Brunswick part of the eastern time zone, putting Fredericton on the same time as Ottawa, Toronto, and New York.

But first the premier will decide on whether or not to follow the U.S. clock change, scheduled to be implemented in 2006.


----

Ontario Power Generation Won't Restart Two Nuclear Reactors

Last Updated: August 12, 2005 11:52 EDT (Bloomberg)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000082&sid=aR3Amf3Aa2wk

Aug. 12 -- Ontario Power Generation Inc., the province-owned utility that provides 70 percent of Ontario's electricity, won't restart two nuclear reactors at a plant east of Toronto because the repairs would cost too much.

``We have done our assessments of the two units and we could not see an acceptable business case,'' Ontario Power Chief Executive Jim Hankinson said today on a conference call. ``This was a decision based solely on economic factors.''

Repairing the reactors at the Pickering plant would cost about C$2 billion ($1.66 billion), Chief Nuclear Officer Pierre Charlebois said on the call. The units, which generated about 1,030 megawatts before shutting down in 1997, would have required more maintenance and performed worse than the others, he said.

Ontario may face energy shortfalls in the next two decades as the province shuts four coal-fired power plants, which produce about a fifth of Ontario's power, by 2009. The province needs to add 25,000 megawatts of generating capacity by 2020, according to the energy ministry. Nuclear plants accounted for a third of the power supply last year.

Ontario Power had spent C$948 million as of June 30 to restart one reactor at the Pickering site this year, almost twice as much as a panel headed by former Finance Minister John Manley had estimated in May 2004. The Toronto-based utility got permission from Canada's nuclear regulator in July to restart the 515-megawatt unit.

The utility also said in a statement today that it posted net income of C$63 million in the second quarter because of rising electricity prices and an increase in production. That compares with a net loss of C$41 million in the previous year.

Revenue

Revenue at the utility rose 20 percent to C$1.37 billion as consumers used more power to run air conditioners and fans, seeking relief from temperatures as high as 34.6 Celsius (96.8 Fahrenheit) in June. Production increased 3.2 percent. Ontario Power received an average price of 4.9 cents a kilowatt/hour for the output of its power plants, up from 4.1 cents a year ago.

Fuel expenses rose 19 percent to C$289 million from a year ago as the utility relied on coal stations to produce electricity during the June heat wave.

One megawatt is the amount of power needed to light 1,000 homes.

To contact the reporter on this story:
Doug Alexander in Toronto at  dalexander3@bloomberg.net



<a name="du"></a>

-------- depleted uranium

Depleted Uranium (DU) Is Pentagon WMD

by LEUREN MORET
CONSPIRACY PLANET
Friday, August 12, 2005

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=70&contentid=2575

My grandfather, U.S. Army Col. Edwin Joseph McAllister, was born in Battle Creek in 1895. He does not know that his first grandchild is an international expert on depleted uranium.

I have worked in two U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories, and in 1991 I became a whistleblower at the Livermore lab.

Depleted uranium is very, very, very nasty stuff:

Depleted uranium (DU) weaponry meets the definition of weapon of mass destruction in two out of three categories under U.S. Federal Code Title 50 Chapter 40 Section 2302.

DU weaponry violates all international treaties and agreements, Hague and Geneva war conventions, the 1925 Geneva gas protocol, U.S. laws and U.S. military law.

Since 1991, the U.S. has released the radioactive atomicity equivalent of at least 400,000 Nagasaki bombs into the global atmosphere.

That is 10 times the amount released during atmospheric testing which was the equivalent of 40,000 Hiroshima bombs.

The U.S. has permanently contaminated the global atmosphere with radioactive pollution having a half-life of 2.5 billion years.

The U.S. has illegally conducted four nuclear wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and twice in Iraq since 1991, calling DU "conventional" weapons when in fact they are nuclear weapons.

DU on the battlefield has three effects on living systems: it is a heavy metal "chemical" poison, a "radioactive" poison and has a "particulate" effect due to the very tiny size of the particles that are 0.1 microns and smaller.

The blueprint for DU weaponry is a 1943 Manhattan Project memo to Gen. L. Groves that recommended development of radioactive materials as poison gas weapons - dirty bombs, dirty missiles and dirty bullets.

DU weapons are very effective kinetic energy penetrators, but even more effective bioweapons since uranium has a strong chemical affinity for phosphate structures concentrated in DNA.

DU is the Trojan Horse of nuclear war - it keeps giving and keeps killing. There is no way to clean it up, and no way to turn it off because it continues to decay into other radioactive isotopes in over 20 steps.

Terry Jemison at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs stated in August 2004 that over 518,000 Gulf-era veterans (14-year period) are now on medical disability, and that 7,039 were wounded on the battlefield in that same period. Over 500,000 U.S. veterans are homeless.

In some studies of soldiers who had normal babies before the war, 67 percent of the post-war babies are born with severe birth defects - missing brains, eyes, organs, legs and arms, and blood diseases.

In southern Iraq, scientists are reporting five times higher levels of gamma radiation in the air, which increases the radioactive body burden daily of inhabitants.

In fact, Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan are uninhabitable.

Cancer starts with one alpha particle under the right conditions. One gram of DU is the size of a period in this sentence and releases 12,000 alpha particles per second.

Before my grandfather died, he told me that his generation had made a mess of this planet.

I wonder what he would say to me now I would tell him to see "Beyond Treason" (www.beyondtreason.com), a new documentary about the history of treason by the U.S. government against our own troops:

* Atomic veterans,

* MK-Ultra,

* Agent Orange and

* DU.

After Vietnam, Henry Kissinger said, "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy. . ." (from Chapter 5 in the "Final Days" by Woodward and Bernstein).

* Leuren Moret is an international radiation specialist, with a B.S. degree in geology from University of California at Davis, a M.A. degree in Near Eastern studies from University of California at Berkeley and has done post-graduate work in the geosciences at UC-Davis. She is environmental commissioner for the City of Berkeley, Calif.

----

It is not only Iraq that is occupied. America is too

My country is in the grip of a president surrounded by thugs in suits

Howard Zinn
Friday August 12, 2005
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1547587,00.html
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=8483

It has quickly become clear that Iraq is not a liberated country, but an occupied country. We became familiar with that term during the second world war. We talked of German-occupied France, German-occupied Europe. And after the war we spoke of Soviet-occupied Hungary, Czechoslovakia, eastern Europe. It was the Nazis, the Soviets, who occupied countries. The United States liberated them from occupation.

Now we are the occupiers. True, we liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein, but not from us. Just as in 1898 we liberated Cuba from Spain, but not from us. Spanish tyranny was overthrown, but the US established a military base in Cuba, as we are doing in Iraq. US corporations moved into Cuba, just as Bechtel and Halliburton and the oil corporations are moving into Iraq. The US framed and imposed, with support from local accomplices, the constitution that would govern Cuba, just as it has drawn up, with help from local political groups, a constitution for Iraq. Not a liberation. An occupation.

And it is an ugly occupation. On August 7 2003 the New York Times reported that General Sanchez in Baghdad was worried about the Iraqi reaction to occupation. Pro-US Iraqi leaders were giving him a message, as he put it: "When you take a father in front of his family and put a bag over his head and put him on the ground, you have had a significant adverse effect on his dignity and respect in the eyes of his family." (That's very perceptive.)

We know that fighting during the US offensive in November 2004 destroyed three-quarters of the town of Falluja (population 360,000), killing hundreds of its inhabitants. The objective of the operation was to cleanse the town of the terrorist bands acting as part of a "Ba'athist conspiracy".

But we should recall that on June 16 2003, barely six weeks after President Bush had claimed victory in Iraq, two reporters for the Knight Ridder newspaper group wrote this about the Falluja area: "In dozens of interviews during the past five days, most residents across the area said there was no Ba'athist or Sunni conspiracy against US soldiers, there were only people ready to fight because their relatives had been hurt or killed, or they themselves had been humiliated by home searches and road stops ... One woman said, after her husband was taken from their home because of empty wooden crates which they had bought for firewood, that the US is guilty of terrorism."

Soldiers who are set down in a country where they were told they would be welcomed as liberators and find they are surrounded by a hostile population become fearful and trigger-happy. On March 4 nervous, frightened GIs manning a roadblock fired on the Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena, just released by kidnappers, and an intelligence service officer, Nicola Calipari, whom they killed.

We have all read reports of US soldiers angry at being kept in Iraq. Such sentiments are becoming known to the US public, as are the feelings of many deserters who are refusing to return to Iraq after home leave. In May 2003 a Gallup poll reported that only 13% of the US public thought the war was going badly. According to a poll published by the New York Times and CBS News on June 17, 51% now think the US should not have invaded Iraq or become involved in the war. Some 59% disapprove of Bush's handling of the situation.

But more ominous, perhaps, than the occupation of Iraq is the occupation of the US. I wake up in the morning, read the newspaper, and feel that we are an occupied country, that some alien group has taken over. I wake up thinking: the US is in the grip of a president surrounded by thugs in suits who care nothing about human life abroad or here, who care nothing about freedom abroad or here, who care nothing about what happens to the earth, the water or the air, or what kind of world will be inherited by our children and grandchildren.

More Americans are beginning to feel, like the soldiers in Iraq, that something is terribly wrong. More and more every day the lies are being exposed. And then there is the largest lie, that everything the US does is to be pardoned because we are engaged in a "war on terrorism", ignoring the fact that war is itself terrorism, that barging into homes and taking away people and subjecting them to torture is terrorism, that invading and bombing other countries does not give us more security but less.

The Bush administration, unable to capture the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks, invaded Afghanistan, killing thousands of people and driving hundreds of thousands from their homes. Yet it still does not know where the criminals are. Not knowing what weapons Saddam Hussein was hiding, it invaded and bombed Iraq in March 2003, disregarding the UN, killing thousands of civilians and soldiers and terrorising the population; and not knowing who was and was not a terrorist, the US government confined hundreds of people in Guantánamo under such conditions that 18 have tried to commit suicide.

The Amnesty International Report 2005 notes: "Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times ... When the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a licence to others to commit abuse with impunity".

The "war on terrorism" is not only a war on innocent people in other countries; it is a war on the people of the US: on our liberties, on our standard of living. The country's wealth is being stolen from the people and handed over to the super-rich. The lives of the young are being stolen.

The Iraq war will undoubtedly claim many more victims, not only abroad but also on US territory. The Bush administration maintains that, unlike the Vietnam war, this conflict is not causing many casualties. True enough, fewer than 2,000 service men and women have lost their lives in the fighting. But when the war finally ends, the number of its indirect victims, through disease or mental disorders, will increase steadily. After the Vietnam war, veterans reported congenital malformations in their children, caused by Agent Orange.

Officially there were only a few hundred losses in the Gulf war of 1991, but the US Gulf War Veterans Association has reported 8,000 deaths in the past 10 years. Some 200,000 veterans, out of 600,000 who took part, have registered a range of complaints due to the weapons and munitions used in combat. We have yet to see the long-term effects of depleted uranium on those currently stationed in Iraq.

Our faith is that human beings only support violence and terror when they have been lied to. And when they learn the truth, as happened in the course of the Vietnam war, they will turn against the government. We have the support of the rest of the world. The US cannot indefinitely ignore the 10 million people who protested around the world on February 15 2003.

There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that governments cannot suppress.

· Howard Zinn is professor emeritus of political science at Boston University; his books include A People's History of the United States


-------- iran

Iran's nuclear decision 'irreversible': Rafsanjani

TEHRAN (AFP) Aug 12, 2005

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050812102851.zn60r0ry.html

Iran's decision to resume uranium conversion is "irreversible" despite a resolution by the UN nuclear watchdog calling on Iran to halt sensitive nuclear fuel cycle work, a top regime figure said Friday.

"Bear in mind that you cannot treat Iran like Iraq or Libya," Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the influential former president said in a weekly Friday sermon.

"You could drag things on but Iran's decision is irreversible," he said, drawing chants of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" from the worshippers.

Rafsanjani's remarks came a day after the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board of governors adopted a resolution expressing "serious concern" at Tehran's decision to resume uranium conversion activities.

The resolution urged Iran to re-establish full suspension of all enrichment-related activities, after Tehran raised the stakes in the dispute by removing IAEA seals at a conversion facility in Isfahan, 400 kilometers (250 miles) south of Tehran.

"Do not take lightly what happened at the IAEA," Rafsanjani warned.

"It is very important and will create new conditions for our country and the region. It will turn a new leaf in the history of our revolution," said the prominent ayatollah who heads Iran's top arbitration body, the Expediency Council.

Seen as a savvy deal-maker, Rafsanjani was the top challenger in Iran's recent presidential election.

He campaigned as a moderate conservative who favoured rapprochement with the West and pledged to offer greater assurances that Iran would not turn a civilian system into a military nuclear program, but was defeated by hardliner Mahmood Ahmadinejad.

----

Iran unlikely to export nuclear plant output

Friday August 12, 2005 News International, Pakistan

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2005-daily/12-08-2005/world/w3.htm

TEHRAN: A South African proposal to ease a diplomatic crisis over Iran’s nuclear activities is unlikely to be adopted, a senior Iranian official said on Thursday. The proposal is to export output from Iran’s restarted uranium conversion plant before it is used to make enriched uranium, potential fuel for power plants or bombs, diplomats who follow the UN nuclear watchdog in Vienna told Reuters.

But a senior Iranian official involved in talks with the European Union said the idea was unlikely to be implemented.

"This is not going to happen. Iran wants to have the nuclear fuel cycle," the official said on condition of anonymity. The fuel cycle includes uranium enrichment, the step after conversion, which purifies the substance so that it can be used as fuel in power stations or, if enriched further, for use in nuclear weapons. Iran resumed activities at the Isfahan uranium conversion plant on Monday. Despite US and EU calls that it not resumes work there, Tehran on Wednesday broke all the UN seals and made the facility fully operational.

The South African proposal would involve shipping uranium yellowcake to Iran for conversion into uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6), which would then be sent back to South Africa for enriching into nuclear fuel, diplomats said. Iran would then have fuel for its civilian nuclear programme while ensuring it did not enrich uranium itself, which the West fears it may use to produce material for an atomic bomb. Iran’s chief delegate to an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) board of governors, Sirus Naseri, confirmed the offer was on the table. "South Africa, President (Thabo) Mbeki ... has made a proposal," he told reporters.

"Before we make any comment on that we are waiting to see what the European response to that is. Apparently there have been indications that they want to explore that," he said. A senior European diplomat in Tehran said the idea was unlikely to get off the ground. "It’s a non-starter.

It doesn’t sound viable in a practical sense. It would allow Iran to master a key part of the fuel cycle (UF6 production), which is precisely what we do not want." However, a European diplomat said International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei was "very keen" on the proposal.


----

Russia calls for 'de-escalation' over Iran nuclear crisis

MOSCOW (AFP) Aug 12, 2005

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050812150149.0iswoivx.html

Russia called Friday for "de-escalation" of tensions and dialogue over Iran's decision to resume nuclear fuel work.

Russia supported Thursday's decision by the UN nuclear watchdog -- the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) -- urging Iran to resume its moratorium on nuclear fuel production, the foreign ministry said in a statement.

"Having supported this resolution, we believe it is essential to create conditions for a de-escalation of the situation and a return to the path of negotiation," the ministry said.

Dialogue should aim to "reach a solution that in the end meets Iranian interests," the ministry said, while boosting trust of Iran's nuclear intentions. "Russia for its part is ready to use all means to help the development of the situation along this path."

Iran has flatly rejected the IAEA's resolution, saying it has the right to produce nuclear fuel.

----

Europe to wait for IAEA report before deciding next steps on Iran: France

GENEVA (AFP) Aug 12, 2005

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050812190609.ikounyzk.html

France will wait for a report next month by the UN nuclear agency on Iran's controversial atomic program before deciding what steps to take next, Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Friday.

At an emergency meeting Thursday the 35-nation board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) called upon Iran to halt nuclear fuel cycle work and ordered the UN watchdog to report on September 3 on Tehran's compliance with international safeguards.

"We're waiting for the report," Douste-Blazy said during a visit to the UN's European headquarters. "We'll see what happens ... We'll decide what we need to do."

Iran's drive to develop the technology to produce nuclear fuel has raised fears in the West as the same processes are used to make the core for nuclear bombs, and Tehran kept parts of its program hidden for nearly two decades.

Tehran has insisted its nuclear program is only aimed at producing electricity.

Britain, France and Germany led talks on behalf of the EU to convince the Islamic Republic to give up its efforts to produce nuclear fuel, submitting to Iran earlier this month a package of economic and political incentives.

Tehran rejected the offer and restarted preliminary fuel work, and has dismissed the IAEA demand it abandon work on developing nuclear fuel.

But both Iran and the EU countries have said they are willing to keep talking.

"We think negotiations are still possible ... on the condition that the Iranians suspend (nuclear fuel) activities" as was agreed when talks began last year, said Douste-Blazy.

The minister declined to speculate what would happen if Iran refused to accede to IAEA demands to halt nuclear fuel work, saying "we're not there yet."

The European Union and the United States have warned they will try to have the IAEA report Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions if it does not cooperate.

"The international community is united" on the Iranian nuclear program, said Douste-Blazy.

----

Bush refuses to rule out force against Iran

JERUSALEM (AFP) Aug 12, 2005

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050812180342.jhj1psr5.html

US President George W. Bush refused to rule out the use of force against Iran over the Islamic Republic's resumption of nuclear activities, in an interview with Israeli television aired Friday.

When asked if the use of force was an alternative to faltering diplomatic efforts, Bush said: "All options are on the table."

"The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country," he said in a clear reference to Iraq, which the United States invaded in March 2003.

"I have been willing to do so as a last resort in order to secure the country and provide the opportunity for people to live in free societies," he added.

Bush was speaking from his ranch in Crawford, Texas to a reporter from Israeli public television. The Jewish state has accused Iran of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons and believes it is the prime target of the alleged arms programme.

The international community was waiting for Tehran's response after urging the Iranian government to halt its uranium conversion activities, which it resumed on Monday.

Bush expressed doubts that the European Union (EU) initiative to defuse the crisis through diplomatic means would succeed.

"The Iranians refused to comply with the demands of the free world which is: do not, in any way shape or form, have a program that could lead to a nuclear weapon," he said.

"In this particular instance the EU three -- Britain, France and Germany -- have taken the lead in helping to send the message, a unified message to the Iranians," Bush said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency on Thursday in Vienna passed a EU resolution expressing "serious concern" at Iran's resumption of uranium conversion activities, and set a September 3 date for an IAEA report on Iran's compliance.

"In all these instances we want diplomacy to work and so we are working feverishly on the diplomatic route and, you know, we will see if we are successful or not. As you know I'm skeptical," he said.

Bush's interview to Israeli television was a step up from his previous warning to Iran Thursday.

"If Iran doesn't take the steps described in the resolution, we would expect that the next step would be referral to the Security Council," he had said.

Israel has been prodding Washington to adopt a tough stance on Iran and charged that Iran resumed its uranium conversion activities because it had sensed the "weakness" of the international community.

"Iran made this decision because they are getting the impression that the United States and the Europeans are spineless," a senior official from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office told AFP Tuesday.

Israel itself is believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East. Although it has never admitted to having nuclear weapons, it is believed to possess an arsenal of about 200 warheads.

----

Unanimous IAEA call astonishes Iran's Rafsanjani

Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:24 AM ET (Reuters)

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticleSearch.aspx?storyID=128844+12-Aug-2005+RTRS&srch=nuclear

TEHRAN, August 12 - Former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said on Friday he was astonished at the unanimity of a call by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog for Iran to halt enrichment activities, calling it a cruel decision.

In a resolution on Thursday, the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) unanimously asked Iran to resume suspension of all nuclear fuel related activities and asked the agency to verify compliance by Tehran.

"It was astonishing and really strange...that eventually what Europeans and America wanted was approved with unanimity. How is it possible?" Rafsanjani told worshippers at Friday prayers at Tehran University.

"We didn't think that an international organisation, before the eyes of the whole world, would sanction that Iran should stop everything," he added in a sermon broadcast live on state radio. "The decision was a cruel one."

Iran, which has denied Western accusations that its atomic programme is a front for covert bomb-making, resumed work at its uranium conversion plant in Isfahan on Monday.

Rafsanjani, head of the Expediency Council which arbitrates on legislative disputes between parliament and a hardline watchdog body, said Iran's decision to resume uranium conversion was irreversible.

"I am telling you to know that you could not treat Iran like Iraq or Libya," Rafsanjani told worshippers who chanted "death to America".

U.S. President George W. Bush said the IAEA resolution was a positive first step.

The resolution, drafted by Britain, Germany and France, requests IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei "to provide a comprehensive report on the implementation of Iran's NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) Safeguards Agreement and this resolution by 3 September 2005".

The text did not say Iran should be referred to the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he would use September's U.N. General Assembly to bring Iran's new leader face-to-face with his Western critics if no deal on Tehran's nuclear programme was reached by then.

Hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad plans to participate in the next U.N. General Assembly, providing U.S. officials issue him with a visa.

Officials from Britain, France and Germany are next supposed to meet Iranian officials at the end of August.

About 1,000 Iranian worshippers rallied after the Friday prayer sermon, urging their leaders to press ahead with enrichment activities. They chanted "Down with Europe," a slogan heard for the first time after the 1979 Islamic revolution. 



-------- israel

Israeli hawks circle Iran's N-plants

By Tim Butcher in Jerusalem
(Filed: 12/08/2005) UK Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/08/12/ixportaltop.html

Ever since its 1979 Islamic revolution the only fate Iran has had in mind for Israel has been simple: its destruction. Now that Teheran seems to be moving towards acquiring its own nuclear arsenal, its plans for its great enemy threaten to be both fiery and radioactive.

Sometimes Iran's stated policy towards Israel is couched in inflammatory rhetoric, like that on a 40ft banner that used to hang outside the entrance of the foreign ministry in Teheran bearing the message: "Israel Must Burn".

Sometimes the language is tamer, such as the "Down With Israel" chants of students who march after Friday prayers in Teheran week in, week out.

But whatever the tone, the message remains the same. The Jewish state has survived wars, internal upheaval, intifadas and bloody entanglements in the internal affairs of its neighbours. But now a major enemy, one committed to its annihilation, appears close to deploying the most destructive force known to Man.

"Having the ayatollah regime armed with nuclear weapons is an existential threat to the state of Israel," Mark Regev, senior spokeman at its foreign ministry, admitted grimly. "We take the issue extremely seriously.''

But while the danger Israel faces is clear, what it should do about the threat poses much more of a quandary.

Some Israelis cite the precedent of the 1981 unilateral Israeli airstrike on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor. Israel, they argue, should do the same again and launch pre-emptive military attacks on Iran's growing nuclear infrastructure.

But Iran has developed its nuclear programme with such a scenario in mind. It has deliberately spread its facilities far and wide, using nine locations, according to one intelligence source.

And each facility is buried under tons of reinforced concrete, making it more difficult to destroy, even with the help of the BLU-109 "bunker-buster" bombs the US is selling its closest Middle Eastern ally.

Iran, moreover, is further away from Israel than Iraq, raising even greater doubts about the ability of the F15 and F16 planes Israel would use in any air raids to reach their target and then make it home without being refuelled.

And there is also the question of how the aircraft would get close enough to hit their targets. The US controls Iraqi airspace but it seems inconceivable that Washington would open it up to Israeli combat jets and tankers.

While the problems facing air strikes are significant, Israel's military nevertheless believes it has the means to cause serious damage to the Iranian nuclear capability.

Israel's cruise missiles, launched from planes or submarines, give the country a capability that it did not have in 1981 when it attacked the Iraqi reactor with a conventional bombing sortie.

"It's a bit more challenging in Iran but the military option remains a real one," said David Ivri, a retired Israeli air force officer who commanded Operation Opera, the attack on Iraq's reactor.

"After all, the aim would not be to neutralise the Iranian nuclear programme. That would be impossible. But what we could do is delay it considerably.

"That was our aim in Iraq and that is what we achieved - a very long delay.''

The calculation Israel must make is a simple one: when will Iran become a nuclear power?

The Iraq attack was launched only when Israel's intelligence concluded that Saddam Hussein's regime was within a year of producing its own nuclear weapons.

It also followed a lengthy diplomatic campaign by Israel to dissuade France from selling nuclear technology to Iraq. When that failed, Mossad agents blew up components due to be shipped to Iraq at a warehouse in France.

Only when it was clear that Iraq's nuclear programme continued did Operation Opera get the green light.

According to a senior figure in the Israeli Defence Force quoted in the Jerusalem Post, Iran will not be able to produce a nuclear bomb until 2008 at the earliest; 2012 is a more realistic date and experts believe that the current situation is insufficiently acute to warrant military action.

"The best-case scenario for Israel is that the negotiations between Iran and the European Union succeed," said Emily Landau, senior research associate at the Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv. "And at the moment that is still the most likely possibility.

"If you look at the wording of every statement by Iran, they sound defiant but always include some sort of reference to the talks and the possibility of some sort of new initiative. As long as this sort of language continues, then a full-blown crisis can be avoided."

This would suit Israel, which backs the negotiations and wants to avoid turning the current crisis into a row between Iran and itself.

As long as international negotiators are taking the lead, Israel is happy to stay on the sidelines.

And there is one important factor at play: it is one of the Middle East's worst kept secrets that Israel has the nuclear bomb. Iran certainly knows this and it will have a clear deterrent effect.

The result is that Israel might not need to take pre-emptive military action against Iran - if only because Teheran would never use a nuclear weapon against Israel for fear of itself being attacked, and annihilated, by the Jewish state's nuclear arsenal.

tim.butcher@telegraph.co.uk



-------- korea

South Korea, U.S. Show Gap over North’s Peaceful Nuclear Program

AUGUST 12, 2005 03:04 English Donga
by Soon-Taek Kwon (taewon_ha@donga.com maypole@donga.com)
	
http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?biid=2005081210838

Unification Minister Chung Dong-young, who also chairs the standing committee of the NSC, said yesterday, “North Korea should have the right to use its nuclear programs peacefully and its claim of the construction of light-water reactors can be also regarded as its general right.”

In an interview with “Media Daum”, an Internet media outlet, on the same day, Chung admitted the differences between the viewpoints of South Korea and the U.S., saying, “Washington has claimed that it can’t guarantee Pyongyang the right to civilian nuclear programs on the grounds that Pyongyang broke the 1994 Geneva Agreement and has sought to develop nuclear weapons, but Seoul has a different position.”

Given that the North’s stubborn claim to the right to use its nuclear programs for peaceful purposes is the crux of the latest six-party talks, Chung’s remark is stirring up a controversy since his remark can be interpreted that Seoul sides with Pyongyang.

On top of that, Chung said, “The knotty issue over Pyongyang’s assertion to the right to civilian nuclear programs can be concluded through discussions and talks,” adding, “Seoul has insisted that if Pyongyang rejoins the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and undergoes International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections, it will be able to enjoy its corresponding rights as a member nation of the NPT.”

Earlier, in a press conference at the Foreign Press Center in Washington on August 10, Christopher Hill, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, insisted that since the North’s claim to the right to use its nuclear programs peacefully is an inappropriate agenda which runs counter to the theme of six-party talks, the North should accept the dismantling all of its nuclear programs.



-------- security

Island police carry radiation meters

By KEVIN DENNEHY
CAPE CODE TIMES STAFF WRITER
(Published: August 12, 2005)

http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/islandpolice12.htm

WEST TISBURY - Sometimes it seems the problems of the mainland don't apply on this stylish island where beachfront bungalows have ballooned into mansions and locals ask, just half-joking, ''So, what's happening in the real world?''

But the pager-sized radiation meters suddenly attached at the hip of every island police officer this week are a reminder that the real world isn't so far away after all.

It's not that terrorists have threatened Martha's Vineyard, and few here expect it would be a first target.

But if a nuclear calamity did happen - in New York City, for instance, or even the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth - islanders figure they should be especially concerned about a response.

Because if calamity comes, there's no highway off Martha's Vineyard.

Knowing that a nuclear incident anywhere in the Northeast would likely trigger chaos on this island, local police departments have adopted so-called Nukalert devices to ease concerns.

The units, which are the size of a contact lens case and cost $160 each, were donated to the island's 40 full-time police officers by a group called Physicians for Civil Defense.

Essentially, the devices begin chirping if radiation creeps to an unhealthy level. One chirp means a person has about 40 hours to find shelter before radiation sickness would begin.

A series of 10 chirps, and it's more like a matter of minutes, said Shane Connor, founder of KI4U, a Texas-based manufacturer of ''civil defense'' items that has sold more than 20,000 of these radiation meters since securing a patent in 2003.

Truth be told, there's little chance the devices will ever begin chirping wildly on Martha's Vineyard, said Judith Sibert, director of emergency management for the town of West Tisbury. Even an incident at Pilgrim, the nuclear plant about 40 miles away, likely would not pose much public health threat here, she said.

But that's the point. Rather than watch the entire island scramble to boats in a panic, the town's six police departments hope that blanket coverage of radiation meters will provide assurance on an island where the year-round population jumps from 15,000 to well over 100,000 on some summer days.

The best plan, she said, would be to find shelter and lie low.

''We don't want people jumping in personal boats and getting out on the water,'' Sibert said the other day outside her West Tisbury offices, a small radiation meter dangling on her key chain. ''And if you take the ferry, you're headed right toward the radiation. A big part of the plan is to educate the public as soon as possible.''

On a sun-splashed Oak Bluffs afternoon this week, vacationers lounged on the decks of boats and enjoyed cocktails with their lunches. At least outwardly, thoughts of the apocalypse didn't appear to consume many of them.

''Doesn't really concern me,'' said Patricia Higgins of Ashland, when asked about radiation interrupting her vacation. ''But when you think about it, I don't know where you'd go.''

Actually, Steve Jones, a summer resident of Chappaquiddick, has thought about it - a lot. A house painter who was a nuclear arms technician with the Navy during the Vietnam war, Jones helped get the radiation detectors into the hands of the island police this summer.

Back in 1942, he says, his mother survived a fire at the Cocoanut Grove nightclub in Boston, a disaster that took nearly 500 lives.

He says a radioactive incident in Boston or New York would likely only be a threat on the island if it caused a panic. For many, he expects, the instinct would be to get off the island.

''The first thing everyone would do is rush for the boats. That's why so many people died (at the Cocoanut Grove). Not because of the fire, but because of the panic.''

If you'd asked Antone Bettencourt a few years ago if firefighters on Martha's Vineyard should carry radiation detectors, he admits now, he would have looked at you funny.

''You know, if this happened before 9/11, people wouldn't take it too seriously,'' said Bettencourt, chief of the Edgartown Fire Department, where the radiation meters now sit in each ambulance. ''Now you're aware this stuff can happen anywhere, at any time.''

Kevin Dennehy can be reached at kdennehy@capecodonline.com.

----

U.S. Emergency Planning Shows Heavy WMD Focus

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire 	Friday, August 12, 2005

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_8_12.html#27016652

WASHINGTON — Nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological attacks figured in two-thirds of the disaster scenarios the U.S. Homeland Security Department considered last year in formulating a list of capabilities that emergency responders around the country should have (see GSN, April 15).

In developing the National Preparedness Goal, a priority-setting tool required by a 2003 presidential directive, Homeland Security drew up a list of 15 disaster scenarios and considered what capabilities personnel would need when responding to them.

Ten of the scenarios, the full list of which was contained in a Government Accountability Office report published yesterday on Homeland Security’s “all-hazards” planning, involve weapons of mass destruction, and two others involve terrorism. “All-hazards” plans are those intended to be flexible enough to apply to both terrorist attacks and other disasters.

The list was leaked earlier this year, before its completion, but yesterday’s report appeared to be the first official government publication of the scenarios (see GSN, March 16).

WMD scenarios on the list include separate attacks using an improvised nuclear device, aerosolized anthrax, plague, blister agent, nerve agent, radiological dispersal device, food-borne disease and animal disease. Also considered were two attacks on industrial facilities with the intent of releasing toxic chemicals, one of which involved chlorine.

The two other terrorist attacks on the list were a cyber attack and a strike with an improvised explosive device. The nonterrorist scenarios involved influenza, an earthquake and a hurricane.

Consideration of the scenarios led to a list of 36 essential capabilities for first responders, 30 of which the auditing office said apply to both terrorist and nonterrorist events, despite the terrorism focus of the scenarios. As examples of such dual-use capabilities, the auditors cited on-site disaster management and search and rescue.

The 36 core capabilities are reflected in Homeland Security decisions on grant funding to state and local agencies and govern the department’s spending, assessments and training.

State and local emergency officials have criticized the department for focusing too much on terrorism planning at the expense of work to address more common disasters.

“State preparedness officials and local first responders we interviewed said that DHS’ emphasis for grant funding was too heavily focused on terrorism and they sought to acquire dual-use equipment and training that might be used for emergency events that occur more regularly in their jurisdictions in addition to supporting terrorism preparedness,” the audit office says in the report.

In response to such complaints, the report indicates, DHS “promoted flexibility” for fiscal 2005 grants but also said dual-use purchases were allowed all along.

National Emergency Management Association Executive Director Trina Sheets said today that state emergency agencies, which the association represents, have “concerns that the planning scenarios are so terrorism-centric.”

“We understand that they are looking at events of the highest consequences, but frankly, when resources are so limited at the state and local level,” Sheets said, Washington should display “a recognition that there has to be a continued focus on those hazards that states know they’re going to face on a regular basis.”

“We cannot continue to direct resources away [from more probable threats] and towards terrorism,” Sheets said.

The auditors reviewed the National Preparedness Goal, the National Response Plan and Homeland Security’s command and management processes and “determined that each supports a national all-hazards approach.” They say “challenges” in implementing uniform national assessments, priorities and training could arise from the varying situations faced by the country’s states and cities.

“A key challenge will be establishing a standardized approach for measuring and reporting the risks faced by diverse states and localities in order to effectively prioritize and allocate federal resources,” they wrote.



-------- terrorism

Increasing risk of nuclear terror

To profit foreign companies, Sen. Pete Domenici forced loosening of restrictions on the export of weapons-grade uranium.

The Roanoke Times Friday, August 12, 2005

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials%5C29517.html

Occasionally, a story will come out of Washington, D.C., of a subversion of the public interest so monumental as to stun even the most jaded cynic.

For example, U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., went to extraordinary lengths to relax limits on the export of weapons-grade uranium in order to benefit foreign pharmaceutical companies.

Domenici apparently did not care that the provision he inserted in the recently signed energy bill would dramatically increase the chances of terrorists' acquiring the type of nuclear material used in the bomb over Hiroshima.

He apparently did not care that the measure was opposed by fellow Republican, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, chairman of the House Energy Committee, or that it had been voted down in the Senate.

Domenici didn't even care, apparently, that the provision will make it harder for a company in his own state to raise money for its effort to produce medical isotopes more safely with lower-grade uranium.

None of that apparently mattered. Domenici twisted the arms of the Republicans he appointed to the House-Senate conference committee, and they included the provision in the final bill, which President Bush signed despite his Energy Department's objections that the Domenici provision would undermine support for U.S. efforts to eliminate the commercial use of weapons-grade uranium.

The main beneficiary of Domenici's stupefying irresponsibility is Canadian company MDS Nordion, which decided against making the expensive switch to lower-grade uranium to produce medical isotopes.

Apparently, lobbying Congress to relax the export limits was far cheaper.

At a House Energy and Commerce Committee meeting, Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., expressed his frustration. "[T]his is outrageous. To save one Canadian company some money, we're willing to blow a hole in our nonproliferation policies," he said.

How dangerous would weapons-grade uranium be in the wrong hands? The late Luiz Alvarez, an American nuclear physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project, said, "Most people seem unaware that if highly enriched uranium is at hand, it's a trivial job to set off a nuclear explosion -- even a high school kid could make a bomb in short order."

So, to help foreign companies save money, Domenici is willing, apparently, to put the world at increased risk of a nuclear terror attack.

After returning from its August recess, Congress should reverse this abomination.



-------- treaties

US bucked on issue of civilian nuclear rights

WASHINGTON (AFP) Aug 12, 2005

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050812153250.pbz3t103.html

Backed by the world in its drive to curb the spread of nuclear arms, the United States is facing growing resistance to its bid to deny some states the right to peaceful atomic energy.

The question has become central in recent days to Washington's efforts to keep North Korea and Iran, two members of President George W. Bush's "axis of evil," from becoming nuclear weapons powers.

Nearly two weeks of multi-party talks with Pyongyang foundered on Sunday, largely over North Korea's demand to keep up a civilian nuclear capacity if it halts its bomb-making program.

While Washington rejected the idea, China and Russia have appeared more receptive and staunch US ally South Korea flatly endorsed North Korea's access to civilian nuclear power as a "natural right."

The Americans also ran into opposition within the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board when they tried this week to refer Tehran to the United Nations for resuming sensitive nuclear fuel-cycle work.

US officials acknowledge that while most countries agree with keeping nuclear arms out of the hands of Iran and North Korea, barring any country from access to peaceful nuclear power is more difficult to swallow.

They say that many developing states are concerned such tactics could set a precedent that would compromise their own capacity to tap into nuclear energy somewhere down the road.

"Not everybody is on the same page with regard to the right of civilian nuclear power and that's an issue that we're going to have to work through," a senior State Department official said this week.

"People can opine about theoretical rights, but what we're focused on is dealing with the problem at hand and finding a way to manage it so that it's not a threat," said the official, who asked not to be named.

The Americans accuse both Iran and North Korea of using civilian nuclear programs as a guise to develop weapons-grade fuel. But their approach to the two countries has differed markedly.

The United States has shown some flexibility towards Iran, which had been offered a package of incentives by Britain, France and Germany to renounce its suspected nuclear arms ambitions.

Washington signed off on a European proposal last Friday that would allow Iran to keep its civilian nuclear capacity if it gave up work on converting and enriching uranium that could be used in bombs.

The US administration has all but accepted construction of a Russian-built nuclear plant at Bushehr on the southwestern Iranian coast on condition that any spent fuel is taken out of the country.

But Christopher Hill, chief US negotiator at the six-party talks on North Korea, has taken a much harder line with Pyongyang, whose nuclear fuel activities are much more advanced than Iran's.

"It's our view that they do need to dismantle all their programs," the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs told reporters Wednesday in Washington.

Hill insisted the North Koreans could not be trusted after reneging on past agreements and clandestinely using what was called a research reactor to turn out plutonium for manufacturing bombs.

"This is a country that had trouble keeping peaceful energy "peaceful," Hill said. "So there's a track record there that needs to be dealt with."

But critics see several flaws in the US strategy of seeking to cut off North Korea from access to any nuclear power.

The right to peaceful nuclear technology is enshrined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that for 35 years has governed efforts to contain the spread of atomic weapons.

Washington has also been accused of double standards in its non-proliferation campaign since US allies Israel and Pakistan, which have or are suspected to have nuclear arms, are not NPT signatories.

India, another nuclear power that has stayed out of the NPT, just concluded a major agreement with the United States to expand nuclear cooperation.



-------- u.n.

Oregon State University to host United Nations

The week-long conference will cover advancing nuclear technology worldwide

by Juliet Bennett-Stroud
The Summer Barometer
Friday August 12, 2005
campus@dailybarometer.com, 737-2232

http://barometer.orst.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/08/10/42fa394fda91e

What do the United Nations, The International Atomic Energy Association, more than a dozen international nuclear engineers and four Oregon State University professors have in common?

A week-long United Nations conference, scheduled from Aug. 29 through Sept. 2, which will bring delegates from 15 foreign countries and a handful of organizations to the Radiation Center at OSU, where participants will discuss and explore new passive nuclear energy technology.

"Delegates from other countries are excited to visit Oregon, and many have never been here before," said Jose Reyes, professor and head of the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics at OSU.

Less than a year ago, Reyes was in Vienna, Austria working on a project with the U.N., the IAEA and 14 countries to help develop new and safer methods of managing nuclear energy.

"It surprised me how many countries were willing to sign on to the project," Reyes said. "Within one year we had a project up and running."

Each country involved will design its own version of a smaller, passive nuclear reactor that can work with a gravity driven loop to keep the reactor cool.

During the conference, Reyes, along with OSU professors Todd Palmer, Brian Woods and Qiao Wu, will demonstrate a concept model developed with partners in the Idaho National Engineering Lab and Nexant/Bechtel. The Multi Application Small Light Water Reactor (MASLWR) design is smaller and safer than today's commercial reactor.

According to Reyes, this new model would feature a reactor that would never need to be opened. Also, in the event of an accident, no external power would be necessary for repairs. The reactor is entirely self-contained and so manageable that the operator could walk away from it for up to three days without any problems.

Argentina, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Russia, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland will all bring their respective designs similar to the MASLWR to the table. Since the project began, only two passive designs have been tested at OSU and approved by their respective authorities.

"This will really be a great opportunity to interact with a lot of countries at once," said Reyes, smiling. "In between talking science, we talk about our cultures, our homes and we build friendships."



-------- u.s. nuc facilities


-------- michigan

Environmentalists want NRC to reject license renewal for plant near Lake Michigan

Friday, 12-Aug-2005
Associated Press

http://www.southbendtribune.com/breakingnews/posts/3945.html

SOUTH HAVEN, Mich. — Some environmental organizations hope to persuade the Nuclear Regulatory Commission not to issue another 20-year operating license for the Palisades Nuclear Plant.

The environmentalists say the plant's nuclear reactor is brittle and could rupture, releasing radioactive material. They also said nuclear waste being stored onsite could end up in nearby Lake Michigan if there is an earthquake.

"We have major safety concerns about this proposal," said Kevin Kamps of Washington-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "The Palisades plant is already 38 years old."

Palisades spokesman Mark Savage said Jackson-based Consumers Energy, the plant's owner, and plant manager Nuclear Management Co. of Hudson, Wis., are dedicated to safety. The environmentalists' concerns are exaggerated, he said.

"The safety of the plant is never compromised," Savage told The Herald-Palladium of St. Joseph for a Tuesday story.

The license for the power plant, which is 35 miles west of Kalamazoo in Van Buren County's Covert Township, will expire in 2011. Consumers Energy and Nuclear Management have formally asked the NRC to extend the license through 2031.

The commission's review of the application for a license extension started in the spring and is expected to take about two years to complete. 



-------- vermont

Anti-nuke group wants PSB chief to step aside for storage deliberations

August 12, 2005 Dish Network

http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=3700834&ClientType=Printable

COLCHESTER, Vt. A group wants the head of the Public Service Board to remove himself from a case involving the storage of radioactive waste at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

The New England Coalition says Board Chairman Jim Volz was involved in the dry cask storage issue in his previous job as the lead state advocate on utility issues for the Douglas Administration.

The New England Coalition's Ray Shadis says the administration was in favor of dry cask storage.

But Public Service Commissioner David O'Brien, Volz's former boss, says his department wasn't lobbying for dry cask storage. And he says Volz stayed out of the dry cask issue.

----

PSB head steps down from case

By KRISTI CECCAROSSI
Brattleboro Reformer Staff
Friday, August 12, 2005

http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8860~3007014,00.html

MONTPELIER -- The chairman of the state's Public Service Board has temporarily recused himself from a case over whether Vermont Yankee officials can construct on-site nuclear waste storage.

The nuclear watchdog group New England Coalition asked Chairman Jim Volz to step down from the case, saying work he did in his previous job with the state's Department of Public Service created a conflict of interest.

Earlier this year, the Department of Public Service, including Volz's division, advocated for dry cask storage before the Legislature.

In a month, it should be clear whether Volz will stay on the case or not.

The PSB met this week to set a schedule for the so-called dry cask storage case. Board members gave parties until Sept. 6 to say either way how they felt about Volz's position.

PSB clerk Sue Hudson said there could be a hearing on the issue on Sept. 8. After that, Volz should make an announcement.

Until March, when the governor appointed him to the three-member, quasi-judicial Public Service Board, Volz headed the Public Advocacy Division of the Department of Public Service. He worked specifically on energy issues.

In June, the Legislature passed a bill allowing Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, the nuclear plant's owners, to apply for permission from the Public Service Board to build dry cask storage.

During the legislative session, Gov. James Douglas and the Department of Public Service supported Entergy's plan.

It was Volz who first raised the issue of a possible conflict of interest. He sent a letter to parties in the case last month, disclosing his connection to the dry cask proposal.

"While at the department, I was involved in general discussions with department staff concerning dry cask storage," he wrote. "To the best of my recollection ... I neither was involved in any discussions concerning specific dry storage at Vermont Yankee, nor gained knowledge of any facts concerning the dry cask storage proposal."

Two parties in the case responded.

The Department of Public Service said Volz could serve fairly.

Ray Shadis, staff technical adviser for New England Coalition, responded that in his work with the department, Volz would have "acquired a general knowledge how a key and well-publicized issue was being handled within the department."

Kristi Ceccarossi can be reached at kceccarossi@reform-er.com. 


-------- washington

DOE weighs options to start vitrification

This story was published Friday, August 12th, 2005
By Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald staff writer

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/business/story/6808054p-6697974c.html

The Department of Energy is taking preliminary steps to see if some of Hanford's radioactive tank waste could be treated at the huge vitrification plant even if use of other parts of the plant is delayed.

If that idea proves feasible, it could allow some work to continue to empty huge underground waste tanks dating to World War II. Delays on opening the plant also will mean delays in emptying old tanks.

Work has slowed at the two buildings of the $5.8 billion plant that would handle high-level radioactive waste after a new seismic study showed design standards may be inadequate for a severe earthquake. That and other difficulties of the plant are expected to increase the cost of the plant by billions and delay completion of construction and testing past a 2011 legal deadline.

DOE's Office of River Protection has been told to submit a plan to DOE headquarters in early September to further slow construction by halting work affected by new earthquake design standards.

On Thursday, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire discussed delays with Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, saying she was concerned about plans to completely halt some construction, said Sheryl Hutchison, spokeswoman for the Washington State Department of Ecology.

The state's impression is that the delays have more to do with the increasing price tag for the project than addressing earthquake concerns, Hutchison said.

"If you shut down construction, it's going to be hard to get it going again," Hutchison said.

Even if the plant still could start treating waste on schedule in 2011, work to retrieve waste from Hanford's oldest underground tanks already would be stopped for three years.

Hanford workers have been retrieving waste from 149 old single-shell tanks filled with radioactive waste from the past production of plutonium at Hanford for the nation's nuclear weapons program. The waste is being moved to 28 newer double-shell tanks until much of it can be turned into a sturdy glass at the vitrification plant for permanent disposal.

The double-shell tanks are expected to be at capacity by 2008, halting work to empty deteriorating older tanks.

"It's some of the most dangerous stuff on the planet," Hutchison said. Vitrification has been the only reasonable alternative identified to treat the high-level radioactive waste in the tanks, she pointed out.

One of the facilities at the vitrification plant affected by new earthquake design standards is the Pretreatment Facility, which would divide tank waste into high-level waste and low-activity waste for treatment at separate facilities.

DOE would like to study whether some tank waste could be prepared for treatment without needing to be put through the Pretreatment Facility, John Eschenberg, project manager for DOE's Office of River Protection, said at a Hanford Advisory Board committee meeting Thursday.

That could allow the High-Level Waste Facility or Low-Activity Waste Facility to begin operating even if the Pretreatment Facility was not ready.

Eschenberg is just beginning work to form teams to study options and see if it would be possible to begin operating a portion of the plant earlier than the Pretreatment Facility.

The Pretreatment Facility will begin operating, he assured board members. But with 100 miles of piping, complex air systems and complicated chemical procedures to separate waste, the facility will be a formidable challenge to prepare to operate, he said.



-------- MILITARY 


-------- business

German ex-junior minister jailed over Saudi arms deal

AUGSBURG, Germany (AFP) Aug 12, 2005

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050812151354.kya02at3.html

Former German junior defense minister Ludwig-Holger Pfahls was jailed Friday for two years and three months on bribery and tax evasion charges stemming from an arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

Pfahls, 62, who served as state secretary for defense from 1987 to 1992 under then chancellor Helmut Kohl, admitted during his trial to receiving about two million euros (2.5 million dollars) in bribes from Canadian-German dealer Karlheinz Schreiber for arms sales and failing to declare the income.

In testimony before the court in this southern German city, Kohl helped clear Pfahls on a separate corruption charge by saying that Pfahls had had no influence over the controversial deal to export 36 armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War.

The former German leader said he had given the go-ahead for the sale alone, after making a secret personal pledge in late 1990 to then US secretary of state James Baker, who had asked Germany to help the Saudis.

Ex-foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher confirmed Pfahls's claim that there had been no tit-for-tat arrangement in his own testimony during the trial, which began in late June.

Presiding judge Maximilian Hofmeister said that while Pfahls may have greased the wheels for the deal, he had not directly violated the duties of his office.

"You accepted money without being corrupt," Hofmeister told the defendant while reading the verdict. "You were working on commission."

After five years on the run, Pfahls was arrested in Paris by French and German police in July last year. He was extradited to Germany in January.

Pfahls could be released as early as September because his time in French and German custody will be counted against the sentence. When half the sentence has been served, the judges may convert the rest to a suspended sentence.

The judgment was in line with an agreement between the prosecution, the defense and the court ahead of the trial that limited his total jail time to two years and three months if nothing during the trial contradicted his confession.

Because Kohl confirmed that the defendant had had no political influence over the armored vehicles deal, the prosecution dropped the more serious corruption charge the day of the former chancellor's testimony.

Defense attorney Volker Hoffmann, who had requested a slightly more lenient sentence, nevertheless called for Pfahls's immediate release on health grounds and said he was considering an appeal of the verdict to increase the likelihood he is placed earlier on probation.

The trial revived uncomfortable memories of campaign financing scandals in Kohl's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) just as the conservatives are attempting to unseat Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in a general election next month.

Kohl's reputation and his party's credibility were seriously tarnished by a slush fund affair that erupted when a number of dubious deals with Schreiber came to light, forcing the former leader to step down as honorary CDU chairman.

The CDU's chancellor candidate, Angela Merkel, rose to the leadership of the party in the wake of the scandal.

Many court observers said they were disappointed so few answers to the unanswered questions from that shady chapter of the Kohl era came to light during the trial.

They noted that Pfahls's five-year-long odyssey before he handed himself over to authorities strengthened the theory that he had bigger secrets to hide.

The former chairman of the parliamentary committee investigating the Kohl scandals, Volker Neumann, noted Friday it had also never emerged who helped Pfahls go underground.



-------- iraq

Women, Oil and the Role of the U.S. in Iraq's New Constitution

Friday, August 12th, 2005 Democracy Now!

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/12/1422244

The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution called for the creation of an autonomous Shiite Region in Southern Iraq. We speak with activist and author Antonia Juhasz about the draft Constitution that is due to be released on Monday. [includes rush transcript] On Thursday one of the leading Iraqi Shiite politicians called for the nine provinces in the oil-rich southern portion of the country to become an autonomous Shiite region. The announcement has raised serious questions about whether or not legislators will meet the August 15 deadline to approve a draft of a new constitution.

The Shiite politician, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, made the announcement one day after meeting with the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the leading Shiite cleric.

    * Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution, speaking in Najaf before a gathering of thousands of Shiite supporters

The move could pave the way for a Shiite-controlled federation in the south and a Kurdish-controlled federation in the north. Sunni leaders have condemned the proposal and are warning that it could lead to the breakup of Iraq. It would block Sunnis from having access to most of the country's oil resources.

    * Saleh al-Mutlaq, a Sunni and a spokesperson for the Iraqi National Dialogue

That was Sunni leader Saleh Al-Mutlaq. The role of federalism and the balance of power between the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities have been key sticking points during constitution negotiations. The U.S. had set an Aug. 15 deadline for legislators to agree on a draft constitution. To speak about the current negotiations over the constitution

    * Antonia Juhasz, activist and author of the new book, "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World One Economy at a Time"

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

JUAN GONZALEZ: The Shiite politician Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim made the announcement one day after meeting with the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the leading Shiite cleric. Hakim, who is the head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution, spoke in Najaf before a gathering of thousands of Shiite supporters.

      ABDUL-AZIZ AL-HAKIM: Regarding the Central Southern region, we think that it is necessary to form one entire region for Central and Southern Iraq due to the common characteristics of the residents of these parts and the unjust policies which were adopted against them. And we should not miss the chance to achieve this sacred target, and there should be constitutional guarantees to achieve this. 

AMY GOODMAN: That was Shiite political leader Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim. The move could pave the way for a Shiite-controlled federation in the South and a Kurdish-controlled federation in the North. Sunni leaders have condemned the proposal, warning it could lead to the breakup of Iraq. It would block Sunnis from having access to most of the country’s oil resources. This is Saleh al-Mutlaq, a Sunni and a spokesperson for the Iraqi National Dialogue.

      SALEH AL-MUTLAQ: The statement has come to prove the fears of our Iraqi people and our fears that purpose of federalism is to divide Iraq into ethnic and sectarian counties. 

AMY GOODMAN: Sunni leader Saleh al-Mutlaq. The role of federalism and the balance of power between the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities have been key sticking points during constitution negotiations. The U.S. had set an August 15 deadline for legislators to agree on a draft constitution. To speak about the current negotiations over the constitution, we're joined by Antonia Juhasz. She is author of the forthcoming book, The Bush Agenda: Invading the World One Economy at a Time. Welcome to Democracy Now!.

ANTONIA JUHASZ: Thanks for having me. Good morning.

AMY GOODMAN: It's great to have you with us. Antonia joins us in San Francisco. Can you talk about the constitution? Though the draft has been seen, it’s expected to be released on Monday, on the 15th.

ANTONIA JUHASZ: Yes, the first thing to say is that what has been released to the public has been very limited versions of the draft. So a lot of what we're talking about is a bit in the dark of what the exact text of the draft entails. But the negotiations have been pushed aggressively forward by the Bush administration, which is very intent on having that August 15 deadline met. But really quickly to say, the August 15 deadline, if it is not met – according to the transitional administrative law, the existing constitution – if the August 15 deadline is not met, then the National Assembly has to dissolve. So it seems highly unlikely that that deadline will not be met. The Bush administration wants to keep everything right on track so that it can show that it is achieving all of its stated goals in Iraq and that everything is moving along on schedule. One of the problems, however, is that the Bush administration has also been very good at making sure that its own particularly economic and political agenda remains on track in Iraq and will not be altered by the constitution or the negotiations over the constitution, and if the drafts that we have seen prove to be correct, that will probably be the outcome, unfortunately.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And what's been the role of the U.S. ambassador to Iraq on this issue?

ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, Khalilzad has taken a very upfront and aggressive stance in the negotiations, making it very clear that the fate of the United States is linked to the fate of Iraq and the outcome of the constitution. The outspoken nature is fairly unique thus far. Khalilzad had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, basically saying what the U.S. agenda for the constitution was and making it very clear that the United States was going to continue to play an aggressive role in making sure that that agenda was met. The Bush administration has not been at all shy to make sure that the world knows that the administration intends for this constitution to meet U.S. demands and to be done on a U.S. timetable.

JUAN GONZALEZ: There's been quite a bit of attention focused on the continuing debate over the role of women, but very little on the economic aspects of the constitutional -- proposed constitutional changes. Could you talk a little bit about what is going on in terms of the economy in the constitution?

ANTONIA JUHASZ: Yes, essentially what has remained almost off the table are the 100 orders put in place by Paul Bremer, the U.S. envoy to Iraq during the period of the formal occupation, which essentially transitioned all of Iraq's economic laws from a state-controlled economy to a market-controlled economy. These included provisions for the privatization of all of Iraq's state-owned industries, changes to trade laws, patent laws, banking, media, you name it and it was transformed for investment so that foreign companies would have complete access to the Iraqi economy.

There was an initial draft of the constitution in Iraq that returned Iraq to a social welfare state, reflecting the original constitution that had been in place during the Hussein era, which essentially guaranteed maternal and child health benefits, child care, the role of the state in guaranteeing education, that natural resources belonged to the state, etc. That draft was essentially eviscerated and the current draft puts all of that back into the market and probably most importantly makes the condition of natural resources far more difficult to determine what the outcome is going to be for Iraq's oil.

At the same time as the negotiations are moving forward on the constitution, an oil law is set to come into force in Iraq, a new national oil law that eliminates the nationalization, the state control of Iraq's oil, opens up the oil sector to private foreign investment and essentially guarantees the ability of U.S. companies to have at minimum significantly greater access to Iraq's oil.

AMY GOODMAN: Antonia, can you talk more about women in Iraq? Interestingly in our next segment, we'll go to Cindy Sheehan, the American mother who's sitting outside President Bush’s ranch, whose son Casey died in Iraq. You talk a great deal about women in Iraq, what their situation is today.

ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, the situation for women in Iraq is tenuous, but one of the issues that I don't think is addressed enough is the fact that because the U.S. reconstruction had been so biased towards U.S. corporations and not focusing on what Iraqis need, the conditions, with the lack of water, the lack of electricity, the lack of health care, of course, falls disproportionately onto women and the need to provide those resources themselves and to make sure that their families have access to those resources. So women in Iraq lives have been more dominated by the need to just meet their basic family subsistence needs.

Women's rights in Iraq under Hussein had been some of the best, certainly in the Middle East, and had been guaranteed, as I said, under the Hussein era constitution. Now much of that is very much up in play as the negotiations seem to be putting significantly more attention onto Islamic law. There is however a very powerful women's rights movement in Iraq that is fighting very aggressively to stem that tide, and that is certainly an issue that is still up in the air, and we'll have to wait until Monday to find out what happens.

JUAN GONZALEZ: What about these calls for Shiite autonomy in the South? What do you see as the prospects for that, or for that scuttling the entire constitution, the effort to get it out by Monday?

ANTONIA JUHASZ: As I said, I find it would be very difficult to see the constitution not being completed on the 15th, as those in power do not want to lose power by having the entire government dissolved on the 15th. What I think the Shiite call is for is: How will federalism be defined in Iraq? The Kurds have made very clear that they want to have their own autonomous region. These are not proposals for the dissolving of Iraq into separate countries. It's more along the lines of how will the lines of the regional authority be determined? So the Sunnis are certainly very concerned at the idea of essentially Iraq's oil being put in the hands of the Shiites in one region and the Kurds in another. However, you could still have federal authority divided along the very same lines that are being put forward by the Shiites right now and have a national law that would distribute the oil wealth in a fair manner and authority over the oil in a fair manner.

I think what we're seeing right now is in the days leading up to the conclusion of the negotiations, each of the power bodies that play in Iraq, stating their most aggressive and desired stance, so that they will be on record for that. And then whatever happens on Monday happens on Monday. Then there's a several-month process before October 15th, when a referendum will be had on the constitution, in which hopefully a public debate will be able to be had, and the public will therefore be informed on the positions of their political leaders. I think for any of that to make any sense and to actually move forward in any sort of democratic means, the U.S. military invasion and the economic invasion will have to end for there to be any real discussion to see what these positions really mean and what the public really has at its access to have any sort of say in what the constitution will ultimately mean for them.

AMY GOODMAN: Antonia Juhasz, I want to thank you very much for joining us in San Francisco. She is the author of the forthcoming book, The Bush Agenda: Invading the World One Economy at a Time. 



-------- spies

MI6 drops secrecy over spy jobs
Service is to modify recruiting practices because of interest from Muslims after the London bombs
	
By Michael Evans, August 09, 2005 UK Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1726778,00.html
	
THE Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, is to break with nearly a century of tradition and recruit openly for spies.

The decision comes after what has been perceived as a remarkable development since the suicide bombings in London on July 7.

According to intelligence sources a significant number of applications for jobs through existing methods of recruiting had come from Muslim graduates, who said that they wanted to do something for their country.

They had applied through the only available outlet, a PO Box address on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website. The unexpected rise in interest encouraged the hierarchy at Vauxhall Cross, the headquarters of the service by the Thames, to change its longstanding methods of recruiting and to tap into what appeared to be a rich vein of eager patriots.

Although there is no decision yet on how the service intends to make itself more open to those interested in a spying career, intelligence sources say that it aims to advertise in a way that would make it obvious that it was MI6 offering a job.

It will be a significant break from traditional recruiting practice, which has largely depended on talent-spotting by trusted university dons.

The only advertising deployed by MI6 until now has been so opaque that applicants arriving for initial interviews have had no idea who their potential employers might be.

They get an inkling only after they have been through several interviewing hoops, perceived to be necessary to ensure that only suitable applicants reach the stage where the details of a potential spying career are revealed.

Too much secrecy at the recruiting end of the game is now seen to be counterproductive. MI6’s sister service, MI5, across the Thames, has for many years been more transparent and runs its own website which includes job application forms.

However, MI6 has always treasured its secretiveness, arguing that as the focus of its work involves covert intelligence-gathering overseas, it has an obligation to its agents to remain in the shadows.

The development towards open advertising is expected to lead to a surge in applications from ethnic minorities and women, although the numbers are already high: in 2004-05, 9 per cent of new entrants were from ethnic minorities and 41 per cent were women.

Since the London bombings, the number of people applying to join MI6 through the PO Box number has risen by a fifth, many of whom referred to the attacks.

MI6 created the number — PO Box 1300 — in 1992 but started using it as a recruiting tool only in 2001. That in itself was a break in tradition, but only those who were aware of the existence of the number or found it by chance on the Foreign Office website applied by that route.

So the talent-spotting method, familiar to readers of the George Smiley spy novels of John Le Carré, reigned supreme.

It has not always had beneficial results. During and after the Second World War, a top talent scout of a different kind, at Cambridge University, recruited the infamous spy ring of undergraduates, including Harold “Kim” Philby, Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean who worked as double agents for the Soviet KGB.

IN THE SHADOWS
# The core of MI6’s operational or agent-running cadre is drawn from “high-calibre graduates with a commitment to public service who exhibit integrity, strong intellectual skills, strength of character and an interest in international affairs”
# Those with analytical skills, able to map out terrorist networks, linguists, particularly Arabic speakers, and computer specialists are also wanted
# All graduate entrants are expected to serve abroad as intelligence officers during their careers
# The starting salary for a 23-year-old agent is about £24,000
# Non-graduate entrants with two A levels work in support roles, but also serve abroad
# Candidates, who should be in their early 20s to early 30s, may include those bored with other careers
# About a quarter of the 2,000 staff serve as undercover intelligence officers in British embassies
# It can take up to six months to complete the vetting process
# Famous MI6 spies: David John Moore Cornwell (or John Le Carré), Graham Greene and Malcolm Muggeridge
# The model for James Bond: Sir Fitzroy Maclean
 
----

CIA ceremony for ex-spymasters sparks puzzlement

Fri Aug 12, 2005 01:06 PM ET (Reuters)

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=9362497&src=rss/domesticNews
	
WASHINGTON - The CIA will honor nine former spymasters who served in the now-defunct position of director of central intelligence at a closed-door ceremony that has sparked puzzlement and surprise among some ex-spies.

The agency, which has been rocked by sweeping intelligence reform this year, has invited all of its employees to attend the closed presentation that will be hosted on Tuesday by CIA Director Porter Goss.

Nine former directors of central intelligence including former President George Bush are scheduled to attend the private event in the cafeteria of the agency's Langley, Virginia, headquarters.

But word of the ceremony has come as a surprise to former CIA officials who believe the premier spy agency's status has been eroded by post-September 11 intelligence reform.

From 1947 until this year, the head of the CIA was also the director of central intelligence.

"It's an event to celebrate the rich history of the office of the director of central intelligence and to look ahead understanding that our future's built on the best of our past," said CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano.

Intelligence reforms enacted by Congress last year shifted the mantle of leadership from the CIA director to the new director of national intelligence, a post that career diplomat John Negroponte has held since April.

"It's hard to see a substantive peg to this event. I wonder if they're trying to do a morale boost because the agency feels it's now second-string," said Rick Russell, a former CIA analyst who teaches security studies at Georgetown University.

Added a former senior CIA clandestine officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity: "What are they thinking? It sounds like the dance of the dodos. The DCI post is extinct." 



-------- POLITICS


-------- us politics

Congressman Jim Leach speaks out against nuclear energy and Iraq war

By Jessica Lowe, Fairfield Iowa Daily Ledger 
August 12, 2005

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15026188&BRD=1139&PAG=461&dept_id=142642&rfi=6

      Iowa Congressman Jim Leach made a stop in Fairfield as part of a series of community meetings in the 2nd Congressional District Thursday evening.

      Eighteen people showed up at the Fairfield Public Library to listen to Leach's opening statements before giving his constituents the floor.

      "These are designed to help make elected representatives accessible and to help educate them," Leach said. "It's very important for an elected representative [to have these meetings] for two reasons, a) to find out what constituents think and b) so they can tell the elected representative what he or she is doing wrong."

      After warning constituents of possible scams in the area and expressing his views on the need to remove troops from Iraq, Leach opened the meeting to comments and questions. Constituents attending the meeting raised topics that included conservation issues, nuclear energy, morality, and Social Security and Medicare.

       Leach also addressed concerns raised about military presence in Iraq and the current situation in the Middle East. He discussed his hopes of removing American soldiers from Iraq as soon as possible.

      "Iraq is a divided society," Leach said. "If we stay there, Iraqis will continue to attack American troops and consider their own government a puppet government. There are questions if the [new Iraqi] government can be maintained if we are over there or not. The withdrawal proposal is less risky than if we stay."

      One man in the crowd voiced his concern with using nuclear weapons and energy as a bargaining tool with India, expressing his concern with the effect nuclear energy has on the environment. His point was countered by a man who said he was a nuclear engineer.

      "For some reason Fairfield is a center of very interesting and thoughtful people," Leach said. "For example you heard one of the most intelligent environmental perspectives tonight and it was countered by a man who is a nuclear engineer. That difference in judgment makes for first class discussion."

      Leach also made visits to Washington, Iowa, Ottumwa and Keosauqua.


-------- ENERGY 

Pro-nuclear energy group seeks to debunk myths of plutonium risks

    Coalition 21 blasts DOE-INL opponents for 'propaganda' ads

    By STEVE BENSON
    Idaho Mountain Express Staff Writer, August 12, 2005

http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?issue_date=08-12-2005&ID=2005104666

    Is nuclear energy inherently evil and deadly, or practical and safe?

    The debate has resurfaced in Idaho with the Department of Energy's proposal to produce plutonium-238 at the Idaho National Laboratory, located in the sagebrush desert between Idaho Falls and Arco.

    Residents of resort towns like Sun Valley and Jackson, Wyo., have expressed outrage over the proposal and promise to fight it to the end.

    But a pro-nuclear energy group, Idaho Falls-based Coalition 21, has blasted the opposition for buying into what they call "propaganda" created by nuclear watchdogs like the Snake River Alliance.

    While Coalition 21 supports the proposal, it's under one condition: The INL must clean up and remove waste accumulated from past projects.

    "In particular, DOE must provide the legal as well as the technical basis for proper disposal of the resultant wastes," states Coalition 21's president, John Tanner.

    The DOE wants to consolidate Pu-238 production at the INL. The production, which could begin as early as 2012 and continue for 30 years, would require the construction of a new $300 million facility.

    The proposal is currently immersed in a draft Environmental Impact Statement study, which examines the project's potential impacts on the environment, public health and wildlife. One component of the draft EIS is public input, which will continue until the end of August.

    Last month, the DOE held a series of public hearings in Idaho and one in Jackson to collect public feedback required by the EIS.

    During a July 20 hearing in Sun Valley, 32 public comments were issued. Only two speakers supported the DOE's project.

    One of those supporters was Martin Huebner, a nuclear engineer, former INL employee, and member of Coalition 21. Huebner, who has a home in Elkhorn, clashed with members of the public throughout the meeting and at one point became so angry that he raised his middle finger to the crowd.

    Huebner's frustration boiled over from what he labeled "the rudest, most disruptive, most ill-mannered, obscenely obnoxious audience I have ever encountered."

    He continued to say that people who live in resort towns tend to "think perception is reality," and digest misinformation "like it's caviar."

    Coalition 21's motto is "Facts not fear."

    Several local residents who addressed the DOE representatives in Sun Valley apologized for the hostility but also said it was necessary to make it clear that the Wood River Valley would not stand for the proposal.

    Huebner, who calls himself a "hard-core environmentalist," said the atmosphere was much different at a DOE meeting in Idaho Falls. According to the Idaho Falls Post Register, about 240 people attended that city's hearing, and at least half of the public speakers supported the project.

    "The people over here in Idaho Falls are probably the most educated (about nuclear energy)," Huebner said. "They don't worry because they know all of these allegations are totally false."

    Huebner said his love for the environment fuels his support for nuclear energy.

    "Nuclear energy is environmentally benign, it's safe," he said.

    Tanner believes nuclear energy and plutonium are completely misunderstood.

    "I think the risks are exaggerated and totally ridiculous," said Tanner, a physical chemist who worked at the INL for 17 years. "We think it's a good project and we'd like to have it in Idaho."

    The Snake River Alliance claims they are not opposed outright to nuclear energy, and they are not spreading misinformation.

    "This whole idea about fear mongering, I find that insulting," said Vanessa Fry, development director of the Snake River Alliance. "We're just trying to educate the public as much as they are."

    Pu-238, unlike Pu-239, is a non-weapons-grade form of the man-made, radioactive element. It has a half-life of 87 years, compared to Pu-239's 24,000 years. Basically, the heat emitted by Pu-238 acts as a long-lasting, self-sustainable generator, making it an ideal power source for deep-sea and space craft equipment. The DOE claims the material will be used for NASA satellites and national security missions, and will not be used for military purposes. The exact use, however, remains classified.

    While the half-life of Pu-238 is miniscule compared to Pu-239, it's toxicity levels are not—Pu-238 is 270 times more radioactive than Pu-239. It is so toxic that it is believed that inhaling a speck of Pu-238 can cause cancer. But many wonder what exactly a "speck" is.

    Rick Poeton, a health physicist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said that when examining the dangers of plutonium exposure, several factors need to be considered: the state of the plutonium (metal, chipped, fine dust, etc); the amount; and the duration of the exposure.

    "If you have plutonium as a metal sitting on a table next to you, it's pretty harmless," Poeton said.

    Over the years, several nuclear scientists working in facilities all over the world have been exposed to plutonium.

    But Poeton said he is "not aware of any cases (in the world) where someone's death has been related to their plutonium exposure." That includes cancer, he added.

    "There are people in the Department of Energy and Department of Defense businesses who have been exposed (to plutonium) and carry the stuff inside their bodies now," Poeton said. "Frankly, right now ... (they have) no adverse health effects."

    Tanner was exposed to plutonium while working at the INL, but claims his health was not affected by the incident.

    But Poeton said that is no reason not to be concerned about the risks of plutonium. He said plutonium tests conducted on animals have proven fatal.

    He added that since plutonium is heavy and does not travel well, once inhaled in the lungs, it sticks.

    "It has the potential to cause a lot of damage," he said.

    And that potential is what concerns the Snake River Alliance.

    "If the facility is running perfectly and there is no plutonium leaking, than, yeah, it's safe," Fry said. "But the Department of Energy has never built a facility that hasn't leaked plutonium.

    "Anytime you're dealing with any radioactive material, you have to deal with all of the risk scenarios."

    The EPA regulates all DOE projects, including those at the INL. Poeton said the relationship has always been smooth.

    "What (the INL does) is much lower than what they're allowed to do," he said. "They've done a good job in the past of managing their air emissions and complying with the details of the regulations."

    The final EIS should be released by the end of the year, at which time the secretary of energy will make a decision on the project.

----

Nukes Aren't Green

By Mark Hertsgaard
Friday, August 12, 2005 by Tom Paine.com

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0812-31.htm
 
During a public lecture in San Francisco last month, Jared Diamond, the mega-selling author of Guns, Germs and Steel, became the latest and most prominent environmental intellectual to endorse nuclear power as a necessary response to global warming.

Addressing an overflow crowd at the Cowell Theater about why some societies fail and others don't (the theme of his most recent book, Collapse), Diamond three times cited global warming as a threat that could ruin modern civilization. During the question period, he was asked if he agreed with Stewart Brand, whose Long Now Foundation was sponsoring the lecture, that global warming posed such a grave threat that humanity had to embrace nuclear power. It was a delicate moment, for Brand, the former editor of The Whole Earth Catalogue , was on stage with Diamond.

"I did not know that Stewart Brand said that," Diamond replied. "But yes, to deal with our energy problems we need everything available to us, including nuclear power." Nuclear, he added, should simply be "done carefully, like they do in France, where there have been no accidents."

"I did not expect that answer," Brand said.

Neither, it seemed, did much of the audience. Overwhelmingly white and affluent, they had nodded reverentially at everything Diamond had said thus far—about the self-destructiveness of ancient civilizations that leveled forests (Easter Island) or eroded soils (the Mayans) in pursuit of short-term gain, about the need for America to rethink its "core value" of consumerism if it hopes to survive. They had clapped when Diamond mocked President Bush's see-no-evil approach to environmental protection.

Yet now here was Diamond urging an expansion of nuclear power, a technology most environmentalists regard as irredeemably evil.

"Deal with it," crowed Brand as the crowd sat in stunned silence.

It was smug but useful advice, for this debate is bound to intensify. The Bush administration and much of Congress are pushing hard to revive the nuclear industry, which provides 20 percent of America's electricity but has not had a new reactor order since 1974.

In June, Bush became the first president in 26 years to visit a nuclear power plant, the Calvert Cliffs facility near Washington, D.C., where he endorsed nuclear as an "environmentally friendly" energy source. His administration's 2006 budget increased nuclear power funding by 5 percent, even as it cut overall energy funding.

Congress followed suit in its recent energy bill. Besides giving the nuclear industry $7 billion in R&D subsidies and $7.3 billion in tax breaks, the bill contains unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees and insurance protection for new reactors.

Jared Diamond may not agree with Bush about much, but their shared support for nuclear power hints at the other factor that will drive the future debate. As the United States experiences more of the killer heat waves and out-of season hurricanes that have struck the Midwest and Florida recently, more and more Americans will at last recognize what the rest of the world has long accepted: Global warming is here, it will get worse before it gets better, and the economic and human costs will be enormous.

As we cast about for alternatives to the carbon-based fuels—coal, oil and natural gas—that are cooking our planet, nuclear power seems an obvious answer. After all, as vice president Dick Cheney observed in 2001 when defending the administration's energy plan, which urged constructing hundreds of new nuclear plants, fission produces no greenhouse gases.

But the truth is that nuclear power is a global warming weakling. Investing in a nuclear revival would make our global warming predicament worse, not better. The reasons why have little to do with nuclear safety, which may be why environmentalists tend to overlook them.

Environmentalists center their critique on safety concerns: Nuclear reactors can suffer meltdowns from malfunctions or terrorist attacks; radioactivity is released in all phases of the nuclear production cycle from uranium mining through fission; the problem of waste disposal still hasn't been solved; civilian nuclear programs can spur weapons proliferation.

But absent a new Chernobyl-scale disaster, such arguments may not prove decisive. In an atmosphere of desperation over how to keep our TVs, computers and refrigerators humming in a globally warmed world, economic considerations will dominate. This is especially so when dissident greens like Diamond and Brand are saying that nuclear safety is a solvable problem.

And the dissidents have an arguable case. Diamond is correct that France has generated most of its electricity from nuclear power for decades without a major mishap. Likewise, it's unfair to tar western companies with the brush of Chernobyl. Incredibly, the Soviet-designed Chernobyl reactor lacked a containment vessel, a flaw that would never be allowed in the West.

Dissident greens concede there are risks to nuclear power, as with any technology. But those risks, they say, are less than the alternatives. Coal, the world's major electricity source, kills thousands of people a year right now through air pollution and mining accidents. Coal is also the main driver of climate change, which is on track to kill millions of people in the 21st century—not in the sudden bang of radioactive explosions but the gradual whimper of environmental collapse as soaring temperatures and rising seas submerge cities, parch farmlands, crash ecosystems and spread disease and chaos worldwide.

Fear of such an apocalypse led the British scientist James Lovelock to become the first prominent environmentalist to endorse nuclear as a global warming remedy, in 2003. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace (who left the group a decade ago), soon echoed Lovelock's apostasy, as did Hugh Montefiore, a board member of Friends of the Earth, U.K. All three were criticized by fellow greens. Likewise, in the United States, the movement's major organizations remain adamantly anti-nuclear.

But environmentalists on both sides of this argument are overlooking the strongest objection to nuclear power, even as the nuclear industry is hoping no one notices it.

The objection is rooted in energy economics, hence the oversight. As energy economist Joseph Romm argued in a blog exchange with Brand, "It is too often the case that experts on the environment think they know a lot about energy, but they don't."

The case against nuclear power as a global warming remedy begins with the fact that nuclear-generated electricity is very expensive. Despite more than $150 billion in federal subsides over the past 60 years (roughly 30 times more than solar, wind and other renewable energy sources have received), nuclear power costs substantially more than electricity made from wind, coal, oil or natural gas. This is mainly due to the cost of borrowing money for the decade or more it usually takes to get a nuclear plant up and running.

Remarkably, this inconvenient fact does not deter industry officials from boasting that nuclear is the cheapest power available. Their trick is to count only the cost of operating the plants, not of constructing them. By that logic, a Rolls Royce is cheap to drive because the gasoline but not the sticker price matters.

The marketplace, however, sees through such blarney. As Amory Lovins, the soft energy guru who directs the Rocky Mountain Institute, a Colorado think tank that advises corporations and governments on energy use, points out, "Nowhere [in the world] do market-driven utilities buy, or private investors finance, new nuclear plants." Only massive government intervention keeps the nuclear option alive.

A second strike against nuclear is that it produces only electricity, but electricity amounts to only one third of America's total energy use (and less of the world's). Nuclear power thus addresses only a small fraction of the global warming problem, and has no effect whatsoever on two of the largest sources of carbon emissions, driving vehicles and heating buildings.

The upshot is that nuclear power is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative—energy efficiency, according to studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute. For example, a nuclear power plant typically costs at least $2 billion (up to $5 billion with overruns). If that $2 billion were instead spent to insulate drafty buildings, purchase hybrid cars or install super-efficient light bulbs and clothes dryers, it would make unnecessary seven times more carbon consumption than the nuclear power plant would.

In short, energy efficiency offers a much bigger bang for the buck. In a world of limited capital, investing in nuclear power would divert money away from cheaper and faster responses to global warming, thus slowing the world's withdrawal from carbon fuels at a time when speed is essential.

Mainstream environmentalists do argue that energy efficiency, solar, wind and other renewable fuels are better weapons against global warming than nuclear is. But they will fare better if they go a step further and point out that embracing nuclear is not just unnecessary but a step backwards.

Even so, a tough fight lies ahead. As the energy bill illustrates, the nuclear industry has many friends in high places. And the case for nuclear power will strengthen if its economics improve. The key to lower nuclear costs is to reduce construction times, which could happen if the industry at last adopts standardized reactors and the Bush or a future administration streamlines the plant approval process.

On a more fundamental level, any defeat of nuclear power is likely to be short-lived if America does not confront what Jared Diamond calls its core value of consumerism. After all, there is only so much waste to wring out of any given economy.

Eventually, if human population and appetites keep growing—and some growth is inevitable, given the ambitions of China and other newly industrializing nations—new sources of energy must be exploited. At that point, nuclear power and other undesirable alternatives like shale oil will be waiting.

Environmentalists have been afraid to talk honestly about America's consumerism for decades, ever since a cardigan-wearing Jimmy Carter was ridiculed for urging people to turn down their thermostats during the 1979 oil crisis. But now that we as a species have managed through our carbon-fueled pursuit of the good life to turn up the planet's thermostat to ominous levels, it's time to break the silence. We don't have to freeze in the dark—far from it—but neither can we keep consuming as if there's no tomorrow.

Mark Hertsgaard's books include Nuclear Inc.: The Men and Money Behind Nuclear Energy and Earth Odyssey: Around the World in Search of Our Environmental Future. A fellow of The Nation Institute, he can be reached at www.markhertsgaard.com.



-------- ACTIVISTS

Protesters cut fence, walk unchallenged through Stuttgart's Patch Barracks

By Charlie Coon, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Friday, August 12, 2005

http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=30067&archive=true

STUTTGART, Germany — Three anti-war protesters, including a 70-year-old woman, turned themselves in to police on Tuesday after they cut a large hole in the fence at Patch Barracks, walked onto the base, hung a banner, and weren’t challenged by anyone.

The three Germans, the woman and two men ages 51 and 22, were apparently surprised they weren’t arrested after breaking onto the base at about 11:30 a.m. So they walked through the base and out the main gate, where they turned themselves in to German police, according to Hermann Karpf, a spokesman for the Stutt- gart police department.

Patch Barracks, located in the Stuttgart suburb of Vaihingen, is home to the headquarters of the U.S. European Command, European Plans and Operations Center and Defense Information Systems Agency. The base also has houses and apartments where U.S. personnel live, along with schools, stores, a medical clinic and other facilities.

The three protesters, who Karpf said are well-known to German police from past anti-war protests, have not yet been charged with a crime but will be prosecuted after German prosecutors determine which charges should be filed. He did not release the names of the suspects.

“They went in and made a little demonstration,” Karpf said Thursday. “They waited and nothing happened; nobody paid attention. They walked through the [base] and went out of Patch Barracks and told German policemen that they were in the area.

“We took the names and all the things we have to know from them for the police report. We have to write up all the [details] and give them to prosecutors, and they will decide the charges,” Karpf said Thursday, adding that the three are currently not being detained.

“They are not violent,” he said.

Kim Walz, a spokeswoman for Installation Management Agency-Europe, which oversees Army bases in Europe, said she did not suspect the security breach in Stuttgart would cause other bases to immediately review their security set-ups.

“We do a review of security procedures already on a regular basis,” Walz said. “I don’t think this one incident would prompt [additional reviews].

“We’re confident … that the [6th Area Support Group] and local police are doing what they can to prevent future incidents.”

After cutting through the fence and not being challenged, Karpf said, the suspects walked onto the base and hung a 13-foot-long banner between two trees. The banner noted the 60-year anniversary of the U.S. dropping an atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan, as well as other anti-war sentiments.

Karpf speculated that the suspects could be charged with trespassing as well as destruction of property for cutting the 2-by-5 foot hole in the fence.

German police, who are responsible for security outside the base, Karpf said, patrol outside the base around the clock, both on foot and on horseback, including the wooded area where the suspects allegedly cut the hole in the fence. He declined to say how many police officers patrol the area.

Karpf said he believed the wooded area where the suspects gained access was near Patch American High School, located on the opposite side of the base from the main gate.

“We have to look: Where was the mistake?” Karpf said. “We will speak with the American colleagues, and we will see what we can make better for the future.

“I’m sure we will have a very fast look at whether our concepts are good or in which cases we have to make things better. I think both sides have to speak and see what we can do.”

Jennifer Sanders, spokeswoman for the 6th ASG, which oversees the Stuttgart military properties, said that U.S. and German authorities are working to address the security breach.

“We have complete confidence in the ability of our host nation to respond to this incident, and we are confident that this matter will be prosecuted in full accordance with the law,” Sanders said in a statement.

----

Bush Won’t Meet With Sheehan, But He’ll Talk About Her

Friday, August 12th, 2005
Democracy Now! Headlines

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/12/1422237

President Bush emerged from his ranch in Crawford, Texas yesterday and addressed for the first time the rapidly growing antiwar protest outside of his property. What began as a one woman vigil has now grown into the central antiwar action in the US. Before this week, there was very little coverage in the corporate media of antiwar families whose loved ones have been killed in Iraq, but now Cindy Sheehan--whose son Casey was killed in Iraq-- has grabbed international headlines by camping out in Crawford.

    * President Bush, speaking to reporters on Thursday:
      “This is America. She has a right to her position, and I thought long and hard about her position. I've heard her position from others, which is: Get out of Iraq now. And it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so."

President Bush has thus far refused to meet with Cindy Sheehan at his ranch, instead sending emissaries. Sheehan has vowed to remain in Crawford until Bush agrees to meet her. She has also indicated she may camp out at the White House once Bush returns from yet another vacation. He has taken more than 320 days of vacation since assuming the presidency 5 years ago. 

----

Protest on the Range: Cindy Sheehan Calls for Mass Demos at Bush's Crawford Ranch

Friday, August 12th, 2005, Democracy Now!

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/12/1422248

Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed last year in Iraq, is finally getting major media coverage after months of protesting George Bush’s policies in Iraq. We go live to Crawford, Texas to speak with Cindy Sheehan. [includes rush transcript] We turn now to the story of Cindy Sheehan. A year and a half ago Sheehan’s oldest son, Casey, was killed in Iraq. He was 24 years old. Sheehan is now in Crawford Texas – taking part in a vigil near President Bush’s vacation ranch.

Sheehan has asked to meet with President Bush. But so far the White House has said no. Now she is threatening to stay in Crawford until the President grants her a meeting.

    * Cindy Sheehan, speaking last week in Crawford, Texas
    * President Bush, speaking Thursday

Sheehan’s protest has generated headlines around the world. Military families from around the country are heading to Crawford to join her vigil. Meanwhile Sheehan has come under attack by right-wing websites and commentators. Earlier this week Bill O’Reilly of Fox News suggested that Sheehan was committing treason.

    * Cindy Sheehan, Her son Casey was killed in Iraq in April 2004. She is the co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

JUAN GONZALEZ: A year and a half ago, Sheehan's oldest son, Casey, was killed in Iraq. He was 24 years old. Sheehan is now in Crawford, Texas, taking part in a vigil near President Bush's vacation ranch. She has asked for a meeting with the President, but so far the White House has said no. Now she is threatening to stay in Crawford until the President grants her a meeting.

      CINDY SHEEHAN: And if I have to stay out here all month in this heat, it’s not anything compared to what our soldiers are going through and what the people of Iraq are going through. 

JUAN GONZALEZ: On Thursday, President Bush was asked about Cindy Sheehan.

      PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: You know, listen. I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan. She feels strongly about her – about her position, and I -- she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America. She has the right to her position. And I thought long and hard about her position. I have heard her position from others, which is, get out of Iraq now. And it would be a – it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so. 

AMY GOODMAN: Cindy Sheehan's protest has generated headlines around the world. Military families from around the country are heading to Crawford to join her vigil. Meanwhile, she has come under attack by right wing websites and commentators. Earlier this week, Bill O'Reilly of Fox News suggested that Cindy Sheehan has committed treason.

      BILL O’REILLY: I think Mrs. Sheehan bears some responsibility for this and also for the responsibility of other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq who feel that this kind of behavior borders on treasonous. 

AMY GOODMAN: Bill O’Reilly. Well, we're joined now on the phone from Crawford, Texas, by Cindy Sheehan. Welcome to Democracy Now!

CINDY SHEEHAN: Hi, Amy, thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. We're also here with Juan Gonzalez. Can you talk about President Bush’s statement yesterday and what your demands are?

CINDY SHEEHAN: Well, I want to know what the noble cause is that Casey -- you know, the supposed noble cause that Casey died for. You know, I don't believe that a war of aggression against a country that was no threat to the United States of America, dying for that is a noble cause. I don't believe sending our children to die for something like that is a noble cause. I would like him to tell me if he thinks it's such a noble cause, does he encourage his own daughters to enlist and go over there and take the place of some soldiers who might want to come home. And then another thing, he always says that we have to honor the sacrifices of the fallen by completing the mission. Well, you know what? I don't want him to use Casey's death to justify his killing anymore. And his press conference yesterday, he said, I have his sympathy. I don't want his sympathy. I want answers.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And your response to the fact that now more people are joining you there outside of the ranch in Crawford?

CINDY SHEEHAN: We had over 700 people come through our camp yesterday, and we are expecting thousands this weekend. It is just so incredibly amazing to me. I think people in America just needed a way to stand up and have their voices count. And for some reason, this is a way for them to do it.

AMY GOODMAN: Cindy Sheehan, the Drudge Report has been leading a campaign against you, along with Bill O'Reilly. And one of the points they make is that when you first met with President Bush, you came out with a very different impression, satisfied with the meeting, they say. And then you changed your tune. And they also talk about dissent within your family about what you're doing.

CINDY SHEEHAN: Well, for one thing, June of 2004 and August of 2005 are two different months. They're 14 months apart. And in June of 2004, we had buried Casey nine weeks before when we met with the President. I was still in a deep state of shock and a deep state of grief. And I'm still in a deep state of grief, and I will be for the rest of my life, thanks to George Bush, but I'm not in shock anymore, and I have informed myself. And I have known that four different reports have come out proving that this war was based on deceptions and lies, and it’s for greed. And not one person should be dead. My son shouldn't be dead. And the killing shouldn't continue. Every day, people are dying, and we need to get our troops out of there right now. And dissent within my family -- the members of my family that wrote that letter are my in-laws. We have never been politically on the same page. But you know what? These people, I think, are using Casey's death, because they didn't know Casey, they didn't have a relationship with Casey, they didn't go out of their way to get to know him. They never spent time with him. And they can't speak for Casey. I can speak for Casey. My children and Casey's father, the five of us are all on the same page, united in our message of this war was a mistake, and we need to bring the troops home.

AMY GOODMAN: Will you continue the protest, if you don't -- if President Bush doesn't meet with you in Crawford, will you go to the White House and continue?

CINDY SHEEHAN: We're planning on going to the White House and setting up a 24-hour vigil until the troops are brought home.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Has anyone else from the White House, other than Stephen Hadley when he came out to talk with you, have they attempted to communicate with you, or in one way or another dissuade you from your protest?

CINDY SHEEHAN: No, not me. They haven't talked to me.

AMY GOODMAN: What does it feel like to be discovered by the media right now? I mean you have been extremely outspoken for quite some time now. What do you think happened? What is different right now?

CINDY SHEEHAN: You know, I don't know. That's what I keep telling everybody. You know, I keep telling them I didn't just crawl out of the woodwork on Saturday. You know, because they say, ‘oh, you're so articulate,’ you know, ‘how can you do this? You're very well spoken. You handle the media. You act like you're an old pro.’ I say, ‘I am an old pro. I've been doing this for months.’ You know, everybody in the progressive media and the progressive circles, I'm a very well-known figure. And I've been on your show many times, Amy. You know, I've been doing this a long time. And I don’t know why. I think it was just a good idea and a good time, and I never thought of this when I started, but the press is always with the President, and they're here in Crawford, Texas, and, you know, they always look for something to cover, something to do. And you know what? This is the right thing at the right time.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the fact that the President spends so much time every year at Crawford, Texas, and at the ranch there, any response from you on that?

CINDY SHEEHAN: I think it's an obscenity. You know, I think, he takes five weeks off, the longest vacation a President has ever had, and he has troops suffering in Iraq right now. And you know what? Because of him, I'm never going to fully enjoy another vacation. There's always going to be a hole in my life, a hole in my heart. And it's caused by him, and I hope this is putting a little crimp in his vacation.

AMY GOODMAN: Cindy Sheehan, are you calling for people to come to Crawford to protest? Are you calling for a massive protest?

CINDY SHEEHAN: Well, that's what we have been calling for. It's starting to scare me a little bit, because that's what's happening. There's people coming from all over the country and all over the world to stand in solidarity with us, and I think it's what needs to happen, though, because, you know, 52% of America think this war is a mistake and want our troops to come home, and the media and the government need to see the numbers, need to see that we mean business. And I just think that this is just totally spontaneous, and people have told me they have dropped everything to get in their car and get down here, and to me, it's just amazing. People are tired of what's going on in this country, and they're standing up and saying, ‘Enough is enough! I want my country back, and we want our troops home.’

AMY GOODMAN: Has President Bush's girls come to visit him? Have his two daughters, at the ranch?

CINDY SHEEHAN: Come down to visit us?

AMY GOODMAN: Yes.

CINDY SHEEHAN: No.

AMY GOODMAN: Or him.

CINDY SHEEHAN: With him, I don’t know. They don't go by us. They fly in in helicopters. You know, who keeps us well abreast of what's going on up there so whatever we need to know is the media.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Cindy Sheehan, we thank you very much for being with us. We will continue to visit you on your lounge chair in Crawford, Texas, just outside the ranch. Thank you. 

----

Israeli Soldier Sentenced for Killing British Activist

Friday, August 12th, 2005
Democracy Now! Headlines

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/12/1422237

An Israeli soldier was sentenced by a military tribunal Thursday to eight years in prison for manslaughter in the shooting death of British activist Tom Hurndall, as Hurndall was trying to protect Palestinian children. Taysir Hayb was convicted by a military court in June for the murder of Hurndall, who was shot in the head during an army operation in the Gaza Strip in April 2003. It was the first case in which an Israeli soldier has been found guilty of a crime in the killing a foreign citizen during the past four years. Hurndall's family immediately criticized the sentence as far too light given the crime.

    * Jocelyn Hurndall, mother of Tom Hurndall:
      “The Israeli Defence Force has a long way to go before they have any credibility in the eyes of the world. The world's eyes are on Israel at the moment, people are aware in the world of the ways the Israeli force treat civilians and kill civilians. They have a very long way indeed to go before we feel we can trust their word, before we believe they will carry out a thorough Investigation.”

Witnesses said that 22 year-old Tom Hurndall was helping Palestinian children avoid Israeli tanks. He was in a coma for nine months before dying in a London hospital. During his trial, Hayb argued that a confession he gave was forced. Hayb also said he was prosecuted because he is an Arab and because his victim was a foreigner. Hurndall was a member of the International Solidarity Movement, as was Rachel Corrie, an activist from Olympia, Wash., who was crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer in March 2003. To this day, no one has been charged in her killing.

Tens of Thousands Rally in Tel Aviv

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Israelis rallied in Tel Aviv Friday against Israel's plan to start pulling out of Gaza in six days. Opponents of the plan have stepped up their protests in recent days, vowing to sabotage the withdrawal operation. 

----

Lori Berenson Final Appeal Denied

Friday, August 12th, 2005
Democracy Now! Headlines

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/12/1422237

Now to Latin America. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has rejected a request by US citizen Lori Berenson to review its ruling that upheld her 20-year sentence in Peru for allegedly helping antigovernment forces and “treason against the fatherland.” It is reportedly Berenson's last formal avenue of appeal. In a decision issued in November, the Costa Rica-based court rejected Berenson's arguments that Peru violated her rights in a 2001 civilian retrial. Berenson and her family say she is innocent of any crime and that she was arrested because she opposed the government of Alberto Fujimori. She was tried by a hooded military judge and was not allowed to see any evidence against her. She is scheduled for release in November 2015, a few weeks after her 46th birthday.

----

American Graffiti: Signs of the times
President Bush used to enjoy healthy support for his Iraq policy. But now freeway 'bloggers' are speaking out, writes Rupert Cornwell

Published: 12 August 2005 UK Independent

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article305340.ece

Feel like getting something off your chest against that iniquitous warmonger in the White House? Well, you can write a letter to your newspaper, tune in to liberal talk radio, or click to a reliably leftie website. Alternatively, you can take a drive on the highways of the United States.

These are the domain of the freeway bloggers, a breed that have invented a tangible concrete and tarmac version of the internet to make their feelings known about George Bush. The messages, posted from overpasses, bridges and verges, are short, pithy and very, very rude.

How many of these bloggers are out there? No one really knows. Who are they? Mainly, it would seem, young men of a mildly anarchic disposition, with a message to get out, a modest talent for gymnastics and a pronounced taste for the adrenalin rush of their trade.

Are they breaking the law? Perhaps, though it's hard to argue that anti-Bush ranting is any more distracting to drivers than the raunchy fashion ads, local TV station posters and the other beacons of rampant consumerism that adorn every US highway.

These advertisers have to pay for the privilege of course - but what about that hallowed first amendment of the US Constitution, guaranteeing free speech and free expression?

Nor is the technique illegal. Back in that distant 18-month period of unalloyed patriotism between the 11 September attacks and the first adrenalin-fuelled days of the Iraq war, America's highways blossomed flags, diatribes against Osama bin Laden, and myriad calls to back the troops.

Now the politics has changed, and the messages have a darker ring. Next to an old sign bearing the message "Support our troops", a freeway blogger has added his suggestion as to how this might be best achieved: "Impeach the murdering bastards who sent them to die for a pack of les."

Another notes: "No one died when Clinton lied." Another cuts to the quick of the CIA leak scandal lapping at the President's top political adviser: "We support Karl Rove," says the message on the banner, signed "Americans 4 Treason.org"

Whether they are having a effect is debatable. Approval ratings for Mr Bush and his handling of the war are sliding to record lows - but the 1,800-plus US soldiers killed in Iraq, the 10,000 seriously wounded, and a seemingly unquenchable insurgency surely have a lot more to do with it than the musings of these 21st century political graffiti artists.

Unarguably however, freeway blogging is a highly efficient means of expression. "A blog takes me about seven minutes to trace and paint, six seconds to hang," says one practitioner. The materials - cardboard or cloth and paint- cost only a few dollars, and affixing them is also pretty simple.

According to one set of instructions posted on the internet, smaller signs should be placed against fencing and strapped in position with strong bungee cords. For larger signs, coat hangers as well as duct tape are recommended. The hangers should be taped to the top of the sign and then twisted around the fencing, before being fastened with the bungee cords.

And don't worry about the fencing obstructing the view. As long as the letters are six inches high, a sign will be perfectly legible. As for location, anywhere (almost) goes. Not just overpasses and verges, but "anything you can see while driving is a place you can put a sign", the instructions advise would-be bloggers.

"The more difficult it is to reach, the longer it'll stay up. Tens, even hundreds of thousands of people can drive by a sign before one of them takes so much as five minutes to take it down. Apart from actual prisoners, you won't find a more captive audience than people in their cars." Some of the signs disappear in minutes. But others stay up for months.

As a general rule, another blog-artist comments on the website www.freewayblogger.com, the larger the sign, the faster it comes down. "The most effective signs I post are small reminders along the peripheries of the freeway such as 'The war is a lie', or 'Osama Bin Forgotten'."

The spoilsports who take them down are, he presumes, "cops, highway workers and Republicans". But who cares, in the easy-come, easy-go world of the freeway blogs. "So long as you can keep putting them up, it really doesn't matter."

In a way, moreover, the medium is even more effective than the internet from which it draws its name. Political cyberspace is divided into ghettos of the left and the right - but as an aficionado puts it, "When you put something on the freeway, you get everybody."

And on the jammed California freeways where the art form was pioneered, everbody means a lot of people - tens, even hundreds of thousands of commuters on an eight-lane highway, all with no choice but to read these roadside political statements. For Republican drivers, it must be hell. But for the freeway blogger, life doesn't get any better.

Feel like getting something off your chest against that iniquitous warmonger in the White House? Well, you can write a letter to your newspaper, tune in to liberal talk radio, or click to a reliably leftie website. Alternatively, you can take a drive on the highways of the United States.

These are the domain of the freeway bloggers, a breed that have invented a tangible concrete and tarmac version of the internet to make their feelings known about George Bush. The messages, posted from overpasses, bridges and verges, are short, pithy and very, very rude.

How many of these bloggers are out there? No one really knows. Who are they? Mainly, it would seem, young men of a mildly anarchic disposition, with a message to get out, a modest talent for gymnastics and a pronounced taste for the adrenalin rush of their trade.

Are they breaking the law? Perhaps, though it's hard to argue that anti-Bush ranting is any more distracting to drivers than the raunchy fashion ads, local TV station posters and the other beacons of rampant consumerism that adorn every US highway.

These advertisers have to pay for the privilege of course - but what about that hallowed first amendment of the US Constitution, guaranteeing free speech and free expression?

Nor is the technique illegal. Back in that distant 18-month period of unalloyed patriotism between the 11 September attacks and the first adrenalin-fuelled days of the Iraq war, America's highways blossomed flags, diatribes against Osama bin Laden, and myriad calls to back the troops.

Now the politics has changed, and the messages have a darker ring. Next to an old sign bearing the message "Support our troops", a freeway blogger has added his suggestion as to how this might be best achieved: "Impeach the murdering bastards who sent them to die for a pack of les."

Another notes: "No one died when Clinton lied." Another cuts to the quick of the CIA leak scandal lapping at the President's top political adviser: "We support Karl Rove," says the message on the banner, signed "Americans 4 Treason.org"

Whether they are having a effect is debatable. Approval ratings for Mr Bush and his handling of the war are sliding to record lows - but the 1,800-plus US soldiers killed in Iraq, the 10,000 seriously wounded, and a seemingly unquenchable insurgency surely have a lot more to do with it than the musings of these 21st century political graffiti artists.

Unarguably however, freeway blogging is a highly efficient means of expression. "A blog takes me about seven minutes to trace and paint, six seconds to hang," says one practitioner. The materials - cardboard or cloth and paint- cost only a few dollars, and affixing them is also pretty simple.

According to one set of instructions posted on the internet, smaller signs should be placed against fencing and strapped in position with strong bungee cords. For larger signs, coat hangers as well as duct tape are recommended. The hangers should be taped to the top of the sign and then twisted around the fencing, before being fastened with the bungee cords.

And don't worry about the fencing obstructing the view. As long as the letters are six inches high, a sign will be perfectly legible. As for location, anywhere (almost) goes. Not just overpasses and verges, but "anything you can see while driving is a place you can put a sign", the instructions advise would-be bloggers.

"The more difficult it is to reach, the longer it'll stay up. Tens, even hundreds of thousands of people can drive by a sign before one of them takes so much as five minutes to take it down. Apart from actual prisoners, you won't find a more captive audience than people in their cars." Some of the signs disappear in minutes. But others stay up for months.

As a general rule, another blog-artist comments on the website www.freewayblogger.com, the larger the sign, the faster it comes down. "The most effective signs I post are small reminders along the peripheries of the freeway such as 'The war is a lie', or 'Osama Bin Forgotten'."

The spoilsports who take them down are, he presumes, "cops, highway workers and Republicans". But who cares, in the easy-come, easy-go world of the freeway blogs. "So long as you can keep putting them up, it really doesn't matter."

In a way, moreover, the medium is even more effective than the internet from which it draws its name. Political cyberspace is divided into ghettos of the left and the right - but as an aficionado puts it, "When you put something on the freeway, you get everybody."

And on the jammed California freeways where the art form was pioneered, everbody means a lot of people - tens, even hundreds of thousands of commuters on an eight-lane highway, all with no choice but to read these roadside political statements. For Republican drivers, it must be hell. But for the freeway blogger, life doesn't get any better.