NucNews - September 24, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety Government hopeful about refineries in Houston area escaped storm damage; nuclear plants OK Last Update: 9/24/2005 1:06:33 PM (AP) http://www.wpmi.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=AB18687D-49C6-407D-A4E6-708EC8FD6ED8 WASHINGTON - Federal officials were "cautiously optimistic" Saturday that one of the largest concentrations of Texas refineries near Houston escaped serious damage as Hurricane Rita veered farther to the east. But the Energy Department said it was too soon to assess the impact of the storm on a cluster of refineries in the Port Arthur-Beaumont area that caught the direct impact of the hurricane as it came ashore. Based on computer modeling and initial reports, department spokesman Craig Stevens said, "We're cautiously optimistic about (the Houston) ... region" and "that the petroleum supply will be OK." "But we really need to look at the Port Arthur region and other areas directly impacted. ... It may still be two or three days before we get a sense of the actual picture," he said. The Houston and Texas City area has nine refineries with a combined capacity to process 2.3 million barrels of crude a day. Four refineries in Port Arthur and nearby Beaumont have a 1.7 million barrel a day capacity. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas., was told Saturday by some Port Arthur area officials that they were concerned about flooding at some of the refineries there, according to the senator's spokesman. Hutchison said on CBS' "Early Show" that she thought the huge ExxonMobil refinery in Beaumont with a capacity of 348,000 barrels a day, "was probably OK." She said she was unsure about three refineries in Port Arthur closer to the coast. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman has said the government stands ready to provide additional oil from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve should refiners start up as the storm subsides. About 90 percent of the Gulf oil production has been shut down either because of damage from Hurricane Katrina three weeks ago or because of Rita. Along the Texas coast, 16 of 21 refineries with combined daily capacity of about 4 million barrels a day were closed because of the impending hurricane. That represents 23.5 percent of the nation's total refinery capacity. With refineries closed, most pipelines carrying crude or refined products from the Texas region also were shut, reducing the flow of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel into the Midwest, the department said. Meanwhile, three nuclear power plants that had been put on alert because of Rita continued operating, escaping the storm path by 100 miles, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Saturday. The South Texas Project twin reactors near Bay City, Texas, were not affected. One or the units was at 100 percent operation; the other continued a previously scheduled shutdown for maintenance. Two reactors owned by Entergy in Louisiana - one near Baton Rouge and the other 20 miles west of New Orleans - were unaffected by the storm and continued full power operation. ---- Government hopeful about refineries in Houston area escaped storm damage; nuclear plants OK Last Update: 9/24/2005 1:06:33 PM (AP) http://www.wpmi.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=AB18687D-49C6-407D-A4E6-708EC8FD6ED8 WASHINGTON - Federal officials were "cautiously optimistic" Saturday that one of the largest concentrations of Texas refineries near Houston escaped serious damage as Hurricane Rita veered farther to the east. But the Energy Department said it was too soon to assess the impact of the storm on a cluster of refineries in the Port Arthur-Beaumont area that caught the direct impact of the hurricane as it came ashore. Based on computer modeling and initial reports, department spokesman Craig Stevens said, "We're cautiously optimistic about (the Houston) ... region" and "that the petroleum supply will be OK." "But we really need to look at the Port Arthur region and other areas directly impacted. ... It may still be two or three days before we get a sense of the actual picture," he said. The Houston and Texas City area has nine refineries with a combined capacity to process 2.3 million barrels of crude a day. Four refineries in Port Arthur and nearby Beaumont have a 1.7 million barrel a day capacity. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas., was told Saturday by some Port Arthur area officials that they were concerned about flooding at some of the refineries there, according to the senator's spokesman. Hutchison said on CBS' "Early Show" that she thought the huge ExxonMobil refinery in Beaumont with a capacity of 348,000 barrels a day, "was probably OK." She said she was unsure about three refineries in Port Arthur closer to the coast. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman has said the government stands ready to provide additional oil from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve should refiners start up as the storm subsides. About 90 percent of the Gulf oil production has been shut down either because of damage from Hurricane Katrina three weeks ago or because of Rita. Along the Texas coast, 16 of 21 refineries with combined daily capacity of about 4 million barrels a day were closed because of the impending hurricane. That represents 23.5 percent of the nation's total refinery capacity. With refineries closed, most pipelines carrying crude or refined products from the Texas region also were shut, reducing the flow of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel into the Midwest, the department said. Meanwhile, three nuclear power plants that had been put on alert because of Rita continued operating, escaping the storm path by 100 miles, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Saturday. The South Texas Project twin reactors near Bay City, Texas, were not affected. One or the units was at 100 percent operation; the other continued a previously scheduled shutdown for maintenance. Two reactors owned by Entergy in Louisiana - one near Baton Rouge and the other 20 miles west of New Orleans - were unaffected by the storm and continued full power operation. ---- Hanford workers go home after 3rd problem By The Associated Press Saturday, September 24, 2005 - Page updated at 12:44 AM http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002517236_hanford24m.html RICHLAND — About 600 workers were sent home early from a construction site at the Hanford nuclear reservation after a third safety problem in a week. The incident was the latest in a string of problems associated with the waste-treatment plant under construction at the south-central Washington site. Construction was halted indefinitely this summer on a large portion of the project because of seismic problems, rising costs and delays. The plant is being built to turn millions of gallons of radioactive waste into glasslike logs for permanent disposal in a nuclear-waste repository. The waste, the remnants of Cold War-era plutonium production for the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal, is stored in 177 underground tanks nearby. In the Thursday incident that caused managers to shut down construction, a worker in an excavated hole cut a gas line without ensuring there was no propane in the line, said John Britton, a spokesman for Bechtel National, the contractor for the project. The line held only residual propane. But had more propane been in the line, the worker could have been killed, Britton said. Propane, which is heavier than air, would have settled at the bottom of the hole, possibly asphyxiating the worker. Earlier in the week, one worker was shocked when a metal pole was driven into the ground and touched a buried electrical line. Another worker failed to shut off one of three conveyor belts — assuming it was already off — while sampling gravel at the construction project's plant for making concrete. No one was seriously injured, but managers were concerned the incidents had the potential to harm or kill workers. All were caused by human error and workers not following safety procedures, Britton said. Bechtel National officials met with labor leaders yesterday to try to ensure that the site is safe so work can resume, Britton said. The meetings were to continue through the weekend. The Energy Department has levied fines against and withheld part of the fee for Bechtel over safety concerns, although the project's injury statistics have improved in recent months. -------- asia Malaysia needs to develop nuclear energy: MINT official (Xinhuanet) 2005-09-24 23:45:09 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-09/24/content_3538604.htm KUALA LUMPUR, Sept. 24 -- Malaysia needs to develop nuclear energy as the current fossil fuel reserves are estimated to last for 18 years, an official of Malaysian Institute for Nuclear Technology Research (MINT) said on Saturday. It will take nearly 15 years before a nuclear plant with the power generating capacity of 1,000 MW can start operation in Malaysia, MINT General Manager (Business Operations) Razali Hamzahwas quoted by the official Bernama news agency as saying. The power generating capacity of such a nuclear power plant is more than two times as big as the capacity of any existing national power plant, Razali said. "The (Malaysian) government has not made any decision on this event, though Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak has stated that we may go nuclear," Razali told reporters when asked to comment on the country's nuclear ambition. MINT, as the sole nuclear plant operator in Malaysia, has a one-megawatt research and training nuclear plant in Bangi of the Selangor state, which uses an outdated American technology in the 1970's. Razali said latest nuclear plant technology could be sourced from Japan, South Korea and France. According to local media reports, Malaysia's UN Permanent Representative in Vienna Rajmah Hussain said on Friday that the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), while fully supporting the efforts toward nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, maintained the principle position that NAM member states have the right to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes. Malaysia is the current chairman of the NAM. -------- australia Uranium Mining : For Whose Benefit ? downloaded September 24, 2005; Friday, January 05, 2001 10:11:09 AM http://www.sea-us.org.au/evilmoney.html The scientists who built the atomic bomb said the splitting of the uranium atom had led not only to a weapon of annihilation but had also opened the way to abundant energy. They spoke of thousands of power reactors operating by the end of the century and of the need to find the uranium to fuel them. Governments drew up ambitious programs for developing nuclear energy and funded them lavishly. The prospects of an economic bonanza for countries endowed with large deposits of uranium ore seemed assured. Seeking a stake for Australia in the coming nuclear age the Federal Government offered rewards to prospectors who discovered payable uranium ore bodies. Hopes ran high for finding rich deposits. Some foresaw a replay of the gold rush days of last century only on a grander scale; great wealth would flow into the country and jobs would be created in large numbers. By the 1970s several payable ore bodies were discovered making Australia the country with the largest uranium reserves in the world. But although mining companies have made profits and jobs have been created no bonanza ever eventuated because most of the planned reactors were never built. Australian Uranium The stunted growth of the uranium industry in Australia has been partly a consequence of the strength of public antipathy towards the industry. Many Australians perceive uranium mining as a threat to the environment, especially in Kakadu National Park where the richest ore bodies have been found. Mining in this region has had a destructive influences on Aboriginal culture As well there is public distrust of the effectiveness of the international safeguards supposed to prevent the diversion of Australian uranium into nuclear weapons. Public opposition strengthened as understanding of the radioactive hazards has grown. The outcome has been that while Australia has one-third of the world's uranium reserves it exports only about one-tenth of the world's total production. Understandably irked by its disproportionately small share of the world uranium trade the mining industry continually urges the Federal Government to allow the opening of new mines. It is the Federal Government that has the final say on whether or not a new mine opens through its power to decide who gets export licences. Certainly in difficult economic times turning to the exploitation of natural resources to solve our economic problems is an instinctive reaction on the part of many Australians. However, past experience tells us that to do so is unrewarding in the long term. Australia does have other opportunities for trade more likely to build a stable and sustainable economy than opening new mines which have a limited life and cannot provide a permanent basis for the Australian economy. Besides, the value of mineral and other natural products on world markets has continued to decline relative to the value of manufactured products. Australia's economic dependence on uncertain commodity markets to pay its way means it has to export increasing volumes of commodities to pay for its imports of manufactured products. If we choose to take the ethical path ­ that is leave uranium in the ground ­ we can still prosper and provide employment opportunities by making judicious investments in new manufacturing industries and other fields. In the following we explain why. Our Uranium Market Today uranium markets remain uncertain. Uranium is starting to come on to world markets from the military inventories of the United States and Russia as a result of international agreements to dismantle a part of the huge stocks of nuclear weapons. Unlike other commodities the demand for uranium comes almost entirely from a single end-use ­ the generation of electricity. Thus the fortunes of uranium mining are bound up with those of the nuclear industry. Today the nuclear industry not only faces grave economic and technical difficulties but just about insurmountable political obstacles arising out the resistance of people to having nuclear reactors built in their own backyard. All this makes the fortunes of the nuclear industry, and so of the uranium industry, very uncertain. Prices of uranium on the spot market remain low. The price of uranium was at its lowest ever in 1995 at $9 a pound having fallen from around $40 per pound in the 1970s. The price is now hovering around $14 per pound. All indications are that prices will remain at a low level throughout the 1990s. Australia, so far as has been revealed, sells its uranium on long-term contract and not on the spot market. The government initially attempted to maintain a high 'floor price' of US$32 a pound. The reality of world markets forced the selling price much below this. As old contracts run out and new ones are negotiated the worldwide trend is for contract prices to be adjusted in keeping with depressed spot prices. In 1994 Energy Resources of Australia (ERA), who operate the Ranger mine, produced only 1500 tonnes of yellowcake (uranium oxide) of its 3500 tonnes capacity. ERA found it more profitable to purchase yellowcake from Kazahkstan, some through long-term contract, the rest on the spot-market. While companies have protected their profits uranium mining has not brought workers the promised bonanza in employment. Mining And The Economy Why then is the mining industry lobbying so hard for opening new mines when market prospects are so uncertain? Basically because the industry accepts forecasts inflated by the nuclear industry and governments of nuclear countries for their own economic ends. When their optimistic forecasts are not fulfilled then the uranium purchasers benefit from the surplus through lower prices. The mining industry places its hopes on an upsurge in demand, in the late 1990s, when reactors now under construction will come on stream. However, only a small number of reactors will be commissioned before the year 2000. On the other hand up to sixty reactors in various countries will be reaching the end of their working life early next century and will be decommissioned. In the United States, Europe and Russia nuclear power programs are almost at a standstill, stalled by public antipathy to nuclear reactors and active resistance by anti-nuclear and ecological movements to building new reactors Japanese nuclear power program, one of the few still active national programs faces considerable public opposition which has grown stronger since a reactor at Mihama went close to meltdown. Since the Chernobyl reactor catastrophe in the Ukraine anti-nuclear movements in Russia and other former Soviet republics, and in Eastern Europe, have succeeded in stalling the building of a number of nuclear reactors. The remaining three operating reactors at Chernobyl will be shut-down by the year 2000. Nuclear power is not financially realistic for developing countries in view of the huge foreign debts they have accumulated and cannot repay. A recent United Nations report recommended that nuclear power was not a suitable energy source for developing countries which should, report said, develop alternative energy sources. The depressed uranium market in the 1980s caused many mines around the world to close or cut production. This has resulted in the production of uranium being less than its consumption by operating reactors. Australian uranium miners have taken hope from this. They forecast a turn-around in their fortunes and the opening of new mines. However, the unused capacity of existing mines and military uranium and plutonium waiting to enter the market will continue to keep prices low. Based on its present annual uranium sales even Ranger, in 1995, held seven years of stockpiled ore awaiting refining. Nonetheless ERA is pressing to open Jabiluka which it has taken over from Pancontinental. The company says, without detailing new customers, that its sales could reach 4500 tonnes a year by year 2000. Miners are ever ready for a gamble though it may not be in the national, interest. The reality is that nuclear power prospects are as uncertain as they ever were for reasons both economic and political. The green movement is growing stronger and closing down nuclear industry is one of the movement's important aims. Employment Benefits Mining is a very capital intensive industry. Mining projects use massive machinery to quarry, transport and process the ore. The high cost of these calls for high capital investment compared to manufacturing industry. High capital investment in turn calls for high returns on investors' funds and high interest repayments on borrowings. Mines are therefore designed to minimise labour costs. Whereas, in general, about 33 people are employed in manufacturing for each million dollars of 'value added' only 10 are employed in mining projects. Uranium mining companies require even fewer workers to create their wealth. Ranger employs only two workers for every one million dollars of value added. Ranger mine employs only about 300 people directly and generates work for about another 400 indirectly. The mining industry promoted Roxby Downs as a bonanza for the depressed economy of South Australia. However, the mine even after its planned expansion in the late 1990s will still operate at a much lower production level than promised in the fanfare with which Western Mining first heralded the venture. Instead of the 5000 jobs the company said the mine would employ the number is around 600 workers. Had we been a 'clever country', which politicians like to talk about, more investment would have gone into manufacturing industries such as those producing solar energy equipment. Our foreign earnings would be greater and Australians would have benefited from greater employment opportunities. Private Profit - Public Cost While the number of jobs created by opening a uranium mine is relatively small Australians pay heavily through their taxes for back-up facilities and for regulating the mining operation and its heavy environmental impacts. The starting up of a mine requires considerable back-up facilities, called infrastructure, such as roads, new or improved ports and a range of services for the mining settlement. Once the mine is worked-out many of these public facilities are simply abandoned or sold off cheaply. The South Australian government put $50 million into the infrastructure servicing the Roxby Downs mine. This is a subsidy of $100,000 for each job. The Government is paying $10 million a year towards interest and charges. Government funds going to support a mining project are taken from fund allocations to community welfare, childcare, health and education where they are more desperately needed than ever before. Mining venturers also receive many financial inducements from governments by way of tax concessions. Interest payments are tax deductible and mines pay little tax in the early years of their operation. In effect governments subsidise the company's investment besides contributing to the costs of the infrastructure and regulating the industry. The generosity of the South Australian Government to the Roxby Downs venturers is matched by the Federal Government's hand-outs for setting up the uranium industry in the Northern Territory. In 1977-78 federal government expenditure associated with uranium industry development in the Northern Territory was $84 million. This figure includes $38 million to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission which has little to justify its existence outside servicing the uranium industry and its overseas customers Up to 1985 the Federal Government had spent $48 million for facilities in Jabiru, the township servicing the Ranger mine, and for setting up and maintaining the Supervising Scientist's Office, which monitors the mine's environmental impacts on Kakadu's environment. A special environment tax on uranium mines has raised only a few million dollars. The receipts from royalties have been reduced by the slump in world uranium markets. The royalty received by the Northern Territory government is 1.25 per cent. At this low rate and with depressed markets, income from royalties is roughly the same as the government's expenditure on services for the mine. In 1983-84 the Government spent $4 million while royalties amounted to $3.7 million. The cutback in mine production will mean an even lower return to the government and the Aboriginal communities receiving royalties. When an ore body is mined out companies like to forget about the goose that laid the golden egg. When the Rum Jungle mine ceased operations in 1972, the company left behind a scarred bulldozed earth studded with derelict buildings. Over 100 square kilometres of land had been made lifeless by the mine's pollution. It was left to the Federal Government to use $17 million of taxpayers' money to partially rehabilitate the area. The company that operated the mine contributed not a cent. Because of persistent campaigns by environment groups mining companies are now obliged to rehabilitate the mine area; nonetheless companies still try to do it on the cheap. Rehabilitation can often be cosmetic. Much environmental damage remains to be controlled at the public's expense. The Mining Mentality Increasing uranium production is part of the mining industry's general case that mineral resources should be exploited to the utmost limit to help reduce our foreign debt. This ignores the limitations on investment monies and the benefits relative to those available from investing in other industries. So too is government financial support limited for infrastructure, market promotion and environmental monitoring. The more that goes to mining the less there is for manufacturing. The mining lobby also says Australia should refine more of the minerals it extracts so earning the value added to the raw minerals. Applied to uranium this means building a plant to enrich uranium. But entering the enrichment business only compounds the problem we already have with our foreign trade ­ a dependency on commodity markets which are too narrow and too often glutted. Also it has been argued by the Australian Nuclear Scientific and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) that Australia could profit from importing the radioactive wastes our customers create in their reactors from our exported uranium and reprocessing them. Going down this path Australia would become not only a quarry but also a radioactive rubbish bin! The benefits of resource-based industries are narrowly distributed in the community. Mining employs around two per cent of the Australian workforce. Closing the two uranium mines would have less effect on our economy than closing down the tobacco industry, which appears to be the aim of government policy. Said Barry Jones, a former Minister for Science: "It has been a commonly held view that we can rely on the exploitation of our abundant energy and mineral resources as an alternative to a fundamental transformation of our manufacturing. It is essential that this view be rejected". Frequently, on the stock exchange mining ventures burst like bubbles. Dreaming of a mining venture turning into an Eldorado springs from the national ethos bred into it during the gold rush days. Attitudes and policies are only slowly changing. The mining lobby still exerts great sway in Canberra. For while the Government makes great play on switching to manufacturing industry it falls back all too readily on commodity production as the way out of our balance-of-payment difficulties. The consequences go beyond misdirection of investment. It helps sustain Australians' illusions that the nation can go on earning a good living by digging minerals out of the earth and chopping trees. Meanwhile the support given those with ability to initiate innovative enterprises is inadequate. And incentives remain lacking for the young to learn new skills. Countries devoting their efforts for financial viability on commodity production are becoming, if they are not already, 'Banana Republics'. Countries prospering most are those that have fostered manufacturing skills among their people. "What is at issue", says political economist Ted Wheelwright, "is the creation of an Australian productive culture...Skills and skill formation are central to this." We are becoming clients of Asian nations like South Korea and Taiwan. These nations have developed skilled workforces (more significant than their cheap labour). They stand to gain from an Australian economy locked into a dependence on supplying minerals and fuels at prices largely dictated by the industrialised countries. Other nations are investing in energy-efficient equipment and methods which allow them to produce more with less of the fuels, including uranium, that Australia exports. The mining industry would like us to believe we have no option but to rely increasingly on resource-based industry. That is far from the truth. The path to a sustainable economy lies in other directions than reliance on the exploitation of uranium and other natural resources. Information from the MAUM public education sheet on the Benefits of Uranium Mining. -------- depleted uranium Letter to President Hugo Chavez Leuren Moret September 24, 2005 Uruknet http://www.uruknet.info?p=16115 Mr. Roraima Albornoz Press Attaché VHEADLINE.COM - ralbornoz@embavenez-us.org +1/202.342.68.49 Dear Mr. Roraima Albornoz. I would like to send a big thank you to President Hugo Chavez, and the people of Venezuela, for the kindness and good will they have offered the citizens of the US who have suffered so much from Hurricane Katrina. I am from the City of Berkeley in California, known as the only city in the United States with its own foreign policy. We have adopted sister cities all over the world where US imperialism and foreign policy has negatively impacted their countries. In fact, the movement to end apartheid began in Berkeley, and 20 years later the US Government finally adopted it. Many people around the world were encouraged and empowered by the words of President Chavez, now known as "Hurricane Hugo" after his powerful and truthful speech at the UN last week. The citizens of the world need a leader today who inspires real leadership in others at all levels, and President Chavez certainly does that. It was very good to have President Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad standing up in the UN for third world countries to the bullying and morally bankrupt representatives and government of the United States. Both President Chavez and President Ahmadinejad spoke out about the most important problem for all living things today - the use of depleted uranium which has been used by the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia. I am a nuclear weapons lab whistleblower and scientist, and would like to send a new documentary film to President Chavez (in which I testify about the global harmful effects of depleted uranium). The film is about Gulf War I and the terrible things that have happened to our soldiers for decades at the hands of our own government. Depleted uranium is by far the worst, but it is not the first nor the last time that the American people will be betrayed. Please send me information on how to get this film to President Chavez, and we can also send you a copy. If you would like to see a 2 minute clip of the film go to www.BEYONDTREASON.com and you will find it there. Thank you for your excellent news coverage, and please know that many many Americans do not agree with many of the actions of our government, nor do we support a permanent war economy. Americans are living in a thrashing dragon. Like the citizens of Venezuela, we are citizens of a global community that longs for a just and peaceful world. President Chavez, acting through the good will of the Venezuelan people, has responded with compassion and generosity to the victims of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. This is the change that we want to see in the world and we thank him. With good wishes, Leuren Moret Past President, Association for Women Geoscientists Environmental Commissioner, City of Berkeley (for identification purposes only) -------- iran Iran accuses Britain of 'colonialism' in nuclear row TEHRAN (AFP) Sep 24, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050924143620.k079d30i.html Iran on Saturday accused Britain of acting like a "19th century colonial" power in pushing for the Islamic republic to be referred to the UN Security Council over its nuclear programme. There were also widespread local media reports that Iran could expel Britain's ambassador to Tehran if a British-proposed resolution critical of the Islamic republic is passed by the UN's nuclear watchdog. Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi, however, issued a statement denying that Britain's envoy Richard Dalton "has been summoned or expelled". "Britain's approach to our nuclear case is similar to their 19th century colonial approach. It is dealing with Iran's nuclear case as it did when it deprived nations of their rights," top nuclear negotiator Javad Vaidi was quoted as saying by the student news agency ISNA. With the row heating up, several Iranian news agencies said Richard Dalton, Britain's top diplomat in Tehran, could be thrown out of Iran and Iran's ambassador to London recalled in retaliation for Britain's "spearheading the new resolution against Iran." Reports to that effect were carried by the student news agency ISNA, the semi-official Mehr agency and Iran's Arabic-language satellite news channel Al-Alam. Asefi denied the reports, but it was not clear if he was denying whether such a step had been taken or could be taken. The UN atomic watchdog was to meet Saturday to decide on an EU proposal that sets Iran up for referral to the UN Security Council, in what would be a sharp escalation of the West's confrontation with the Islamic Republic. On behalf of the European Union, Britain Friday tabled a motion at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) board of governors that finds Iran in violation of international nuclear safeguards. This would set the stage for Iran to be reported to the UN Security Council for possible penalties for activities the United States claims hide covert nuclear weapons work. Iran has said it will submit a note in writing to the IAEA saying that it will begin to enrich uranium, the nuclear reactor fuel that can also be bomb material, and cease applying a protocol for wider IAEA inspections if the resolution is adopted, a diplomat close to the IAEA said. ---- IAEA board adopts EU-proposed resolution on Iran nuke isue (Xinhuanet) 2005-09-24 23:56:42 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-09/24/content_3538609.htm VIENNA, Sept. 24 -- The IAEA board of governors meeting on Saturday adopted the EU-proposed resolution that accuses Iran of failing to comply with its obligations to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Safeguards Agreement, a diplomat told Xinhua over phone on Saturday. The 35-member IAEA board voted with 22 for, 12 abstain and 1 against to approve the document. -------- pakistan German businessman accused of passing nuclear material to Pakistan MUNICH, Germany (AFP) Sep 24, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050924134851.il6cx4ta.html A German businessman has been accused of smuggling material for enriching uranium to Pakistan between 2002 and 2004, according to Monday's edition of the weekly Focus. The weekly said the man, identified as Rainer V. had been placed under criminal investigation by prosecutors in Munich for 23 alleged cases of infringement of the law on trade in weapons of war. Based in Pullach, near Munich, he is accused of buying vacuum pumps, special ventilators and spare parts for mass spectrometers from the Pfeiffer Vacuum company of Hesse. He is alleged to have shipped the material by air from Munich or by ship from Hamburg or Bremen to contacts in the Pakistani capital Islamabad or neighbouring Rawalpindi. From there the equipment is thought to have been delivered to the Kashmir laboratories of Abdul Qadeer Khan, known as the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, Focus said. In February last year Khan admitted illicitly exporting nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- south dakota Interest renewed in uranium exploration in South Dakota By Steve Miller, Rapid City Journal Staff Writer September 24, 2005 http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2005/09/24/news/local/news01.txt BURDOCK -- Uranium mining could be making a comeback in southwestern South Dakota because of rising prices for the mineral and better methods of getting it out of the ground. In July, two companies leased mineral rights to 2,600 acres of state land in Fall River and Custer counties. The area of interest is near the former community of Burdock, northwest of Edgemont — a few miles west of the concentration of uranium mines that fell silent more than 30 years ago, according to Mike Cepak of the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Energy Metals of Vancouver, British Columbia, acquired leases on four tracts. Neutron Energy of Casper, Wyo., and Phoenix leased one tract. The companies are also talking to local landowners in hopes of getting leases from them, Cepak said. However, he noted that it could be years before mining actually resumes. Cepak said new methods of getting uranium out of the ground are safer than those used back in the 1950s and '60s and that the state has tightened its laws since then, but the new interest is prompting DENR to review its environmental regulations. Cepak, DENR's natural- resources engineering director, said prices for uranium oxide, known as yellow cake, have increased from $9 a pound a few years ago to about $30 a pound now. Although there has been no nuclear power plant development in the United States for more than 20 years, nuclear energy is still expanding worldwide, Cepak said, helping drive up demand for uranium. China, for example, plans to build 30 nuclear power plants over the next 15 years, he said. Meanwhile, worldwide stocks of uranium are slowly being depleted, Cepak said. The oil price crunch is another factor. "With oil prices going up, suddenly uranium is being looked at as another viable source of energy," he said. "There is even some talk among environmental groups that uranium might not be as bad as fossil fuels because it doesn't contribute to global warming." Kelsey Boltz, president of Neutron Energy, obviously agrees. "It's finally dawning on people that nuclear power for electricity generation is one of the very few solutions to this enormous energy problem we have," Boltz said in an interview this week from his Phoenix office. Neutron Energy is mining or exploring for uranium in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona. Boltz said he doesn't know when he will seek a South Dakota permit to explore for uranium. "We're still in the acquisition stage." Cepak said it could be months before DENR begins seeing applications for exploration permits. After an exploration permit is granted, a company could begin application for a mining permit. That process could take years, Cepak said. A mining permit would come under existing mining laws. Cepak said the current uranium-mining methods are safer than old open-pit mines used when mining began in western South Dakota. The companies propose to use "in-situ leach" mining in which they inject oxygenated carbonated water into the ground, Cepak said. The practice wouldn't involve open pits or underground mines, only structures on the surface. Boltz explained that the solution injected into the ground oxidizes the uranium. The solution is pumped to the surface, where the uranium oxide is stripped from the solution in the form of a powder or slurry known as yellow cake. The yellow cake is hauled to another facility where it is concentrated and upgraded. Boltz said there is little risk on site because the yellow cake has very slight radiation levels. Residents of Fall River County in the southwest and Harding County in the northwest corners of the state have complained in past years that radioactive pollution from the old, abandoned uranium mines has posed health risks, including higher incidences of cancer. State Health Department officials said earlier this year that there is no statistical evidence to support the most recent claims from Harding County. In any case, Cepak said, state regulations are much stricter now than when uranium mining began in Fall River County in the early 1950s. "The regulations we have in place now would never allow a company to walk away from a site like they did in the 1960s, where they stripped off the overburden, dumped it over the side and just left the site," he said. "We wouldn't allow them to leave the site like that." The U.S. Forest Service is developing plans to reclaim abandoned uranium mine sites in Harding County that were further exposed by erosion. Cepak said the Fall River open pits didn't seem to have erosion problems as severe as those in Harding County, but the Blue Lagoon mine eight miles north of Edgemont has a pit lake containing acid water and heavy metals, some of which are radioactive. Cepak said DENR's main concern for in-situ mines would be the potential for groundwater contamination. DENR is re-examining its regulations and comparing them with those used in Nebraska and Wyoming to regulate in-situ uranium mines in those states, he said. Cepak said the state closed out its last uranium exploration permit in 1993. There has been no mining since the early 1970s, he said. That could begin to change, although it might not be soon. "I think we're in the grassroots stage," Cepak said. "It could be a 10-year process to get these things running." Contact Steve Miller at 394-8417 or steve.miller@rapidcityjournal.com -------- ENERGY Ancram's warning over energy Michael Ancram has not yet declared his hand Saturday, 24 September 2005 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4277472.stm Conservative deputy leader Michael Ancram has warned those hoping to replace Michael Howard that they are ignoring the issue of energy. Describing it as Britain's "greatest crisis", Mr Ancram told leadership hopefuls energy must be debated. He said an "energy audit" was necessary with oil and gas reserves dwindling, and coal and nuclear unpopular. Britain must consider more nuclear power, alongside increased investment in areas like biofuels, he said. Mr Ancram - who was forced out of the last leadership race in 2001 at the first hurdle - has not revealed whether he will stand this time. He said: "It is astonishing that the Conservative leadership campaign has proceeded so far without any real mention of what is almost certainly the greatest crisis facing our citizens in the next generation." With oil prices rocketing and even the price of coal having endured highs because of massive demand in China and India, the energy debate is becoming prominent. Political challenge Mr Ancram added: "Some politicians dismiss the energy crisis as a hyped green agenda. It is not. "Our political system will be severely challenged the day a British citizen turns on the light switch and nothing happens or switches on the kettle and the kettle stays cold." Despite recognising the potential of nuclear power and biofuels, Mr Ancram stressed the importance of conservation. "We need an urgent 'energy audit', both of our potential and import requirements. "We need to know the finite limits of our own energy and begin urgently to develop alternatives, including conservation. "The one thing we cannot do is to pretend that energy is not a matter for urgent debate." -------- ACTIVISTS Tactics for counter-recruiting By Almahdi Published Sep 24, 2005 7:55 PM Workers World http://www.workers.org/2005/us/counter-recruiting-0929/ “We Won’t Go! The Truth on Military Recruiters & the Draft, A Guide to Resistance” published by the International Action Center, New York, 2005, 90 pages, index. $14.95. Available at Leftbooks.com Available at leftbooks.com Since the beginning of the illegal war on Iraq in 2003, almost 2,000 U.S. soldiers have given their lives for the lies of the Bush administration. More than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have also lost their lives as a result of the “precise” and “accurate” weapons that are being used. And up to this day, the war is costing more than $200 billion, which could have been spent on jobs, education and health care. So the question arises: How can people here end this war? The answer to this question is found in the book, “We Won’t Go!, A Guide to Resistance,” published by the International Action Center. As the bloody war continues, joining the Armed forces grows less popular every day. In response, military recruiters have launched massive campaigns targeting and encouraging high school and college students to join up. FIST “The Guide to Resistance” documents how recruiters specifically target people of color and working class youth who have few other economic options. The lack of jobs and the racist criminal justice system conspire to make the army seem a good option for many youth. This results in a very real poverty draft, but even these severe conditions are not enough to force the needed numbers to enlist. As the recruiters fail to meet their quotas, they increase the bonuses offered and false promises of money for college education, on-the-job training and other benefits most recruits never get. In return, the young recruits are asked to be war criminals and tools for corporations like Chevron and Halliburton. “We Won’t Go!” describes, in detail, the different lies and conscious omissions military recruiters routinely make. It also shows how anti-war activists, parents and others can expose the recruiters’ lies and mobilize to bar them from our high schools and college campuses. The book also shows how it is possible to get out of the military, even for those who have already signed up and then realized the war is not about liberation and nothing but a brutal occupation. As of last March 31, the Selective Service reported to President Bush that it is ready to reinstate the draft. Military conscription is another major threat to youth. The book states that the draft needs to be stopped before it starts and explains how to start organizing to stop it. “We Won’t Go!” also reflects on the experiences of war resisters, uncovers the brutal and dehumanizing treatment of lesbian/gay/bi/trans people in the military, and exposes the experiments of internationally banned weapons such as depleted uranium and the anthrax vaccine on soldiers. Publishing “We Won’t Go!” is an important step in stopping the destruction of another generation of youth, whether through poisoning, mental health crises, sexual abuse or as casualties of war. The book is not simply an academic presentation of facts, but recognizes that only the youth who have already enlisted and those being recruited have the power to end this war. The tools and strategies suggested in this book can give youth activists the strength to kick the recruiters out of their neighborhoods and campuses and help mobilize support for GI resisters. Without soldiers, the Pentagon can’t fight its wars. ---- Jerry Elmer’s Felon for Peace: The Memoir of a Vietnam-Era Draft Resister by Murray Polner September 24, 2005 http://www.lewrockwell.com/polner/polner16.html It’s hard to ignore the sixties. Rightists blame the era and its major actors for all sorts of crimes and misdemeanors, real and imagined. Leftists and liberals draw entirely opposite lessons from a period in which the country seemed to be undergoing a nervous breakdown. By now countless books and who knows how many articles by journalists, scholars and Vietnam veterans have sought to understand how and why Americans invaded and the entire enterprise imploded in Southeast Asia and here at home as well. Jerry Elmer’s compelling autobiographical account of his life as a draft resister and war protestor is a rare bird indeed. Other than John Balaban’s Remembering Heaven’s Face (Poseidon, 1991), memoirs by antiwar draft resisters and pacifists are relatively rare. The son of liberal Jewish Viennese refugees from the Nazis, he grew up in Great Neck, N.Y., a New York City suburb. A student rebel, he earned mediocre grades, wore an antiwar button in class, and when told to remove it by a teacher and principal he was supported by the local school board. Soon after he left high school for the road and the cause, working with various pacifist and nonviolent organizations (like himself, pacifist but certainly not passive). The two radical Roman Catholic priests Daniel and Philip Berrigan whose draft board raids brought national publicity and jail terms for the brothers and their allies inspired him. (Eventually he thought Philip was too intolerant of anyone unwilling to break the law and take the punishment). Moved by Dan Berrigan’s famous remark that he would rather destroy paper than babies, Elmer was convicted for raiding a draft board and destroying "government property" – that is, the files of young draft-eligible young men (really boys) and then accepted – he says reluctantly – a plea bargain and evaded jail. While Elmer’s recollections have far too many unnecessarily sophomoric criticisms about various antiwar people he encountered – apparently those he disliked were all imperfect save himself – he raises pertinent questions about the war, the opposition, and by extension our current impasse in yet another extremely dubious war in Iraq. For example, who helped end the Vietnam War? What role did antiwar marchers and protestors play? And to what extent did practitioners of direct nonviolent action help stop the killing? No one, of course, can definitely tell, though Elmer makes a strong case that people like himself played a crucial role in generating opposition to the killing and mobilizing many more people to oppose the war. Elmer is a Harvard Law School graduate and has since been admitted to practice in state and federal courts. He now practices commercial litigation in Providence, R.I. and serves as legal counsel to the Fellowship of Reconciliation, an interfaith pacifist organization founded in 1915. Still a pacifist, he writes, "We pacifists are right to oppose all violence, regardless of who commits it or what excuse are given for it." Even more significantly, and looking back at the sixties, he argues that nonviolent direct action is more effective than violence because it avoids "alienating the very people we are trying to reach and influence." Some writers have insisted that identifying the mass of antiwar people with more radical protestors made it easier for the entire movement of millions of people disgusted with the war and the draft to be easily dismissed by prowar elements. An obsequious media eager to present radicals as the heart of the antiwar and anti-draft movement gave beards, long hair, beads, marijuana and nude demonstrators exaggerated prominence. It may in fact be one of the reasons it convinced an overwhelming number of Americans to re-elect in 1972 a dishonorable paranoid like Nixon over George McGovern, a genuine war hero and outspoken antiwar liberal. Murray Polner [send him mail] co-authored Disarmed and Dangerous, a biography of Daniel and Philip Berrigan and wrote No Victory Parades: The Return of the Vietnam Veteran. This article originally appeared on the History News Network.