NucNews - October 17, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- australia Australia says China wants to explore for uranium SYDNEY (AFP) Oct 17, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051017023347.glz4ifb4.html China has asked for permission to conduct uranium exploration and mining in Australia to fuel its growing nuclear power industry, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Monday. Downer said the government had no objection to the principle of opening up Australia's significant uranium deposits to the Chinese, but would insist Beijing first sign a nuclear safeguard agreement. "We wouldn't be exporting any uranium to China for military purposes of any kind," Downer said on national radio. "By that I don't only mean for use in nuclear weapons, but also we wouldn't be exporting any uranium to China for use in military vessels or vehicles of one kind or another," he said. Chinese officials first asked for access to Australian uranium deposits during meetings in February with the Australian Nuclear Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, officials said. The Chinese initiative was revealed Monday by The Age newspaper in Melbourne and then confirmed by Downer, who earlier this year raised the prospect of increasing Australian exports of uranium to help fuel expanding nuclear power industries across Asia, notably in China, South Korea and India. Australia has about 40 percent of the world's known uranium reserves but has only three operating uranium mines, two in South Australia and one in the Northern Territory. The country has no nuclear power industry. The center-left Labor Party, which controls the state and territory governments, has opposed opening more uranium mines. Prime Minister John Howard's conservative federal government in August seized control of uranium mining rights in the Northern Territory, giving it the power to grant approvals for exploration and mining activity. Howard on Monday said he was unaware of a direct approach by the Chinese government concerning uranium exploration, but said China would have the same rights as any other party if it wanted to enter the sector. "If China or indeed anybody else wants to mine uranium in Australia, it will be subject to the same laws as anybody else," he said. "They will have to get permits and so forth from the various state authorities and of course they will have to comply with our uranium safeguards policy." A nuclear proliferation expert expressed strong concern that allowing China to conduct its own uranium operations in Australia would make it difficult to ensure the nuclear material was used only for civilian purposes. "I'm very worried about this," Richard Broinowski told The Age. "I think the Australians are seeing dollar signs all over the place," he said, raising the prospect of China using Australian uranium for power generation so that it would be free to use its own uranium deposits for the military. In 2004, Australia exported 9,648 tonnes of uranium, 39 percent of which went to the United States, 25 percent to Japan, 25 percent to the European Union, 10 percent to South Korea and one percent to Canada. --- China seeks to explore for uranium in Australia By David Lague International Herald Tribune MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2005 http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/17/business/uranium.php HONG KONG Chinese companies are setting their sights on investing in uranium exploration and mining in Australia as sustained high oil prices accelerate China's drive to develop alternative energy sources and reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels. Senior Australian government officials confirmed on Monday that China asked in February whether Chinese companies would be permitted to identify and exploit uranium deposits in Australia, which has the world's biggest uranium reserves. The two sides began formal talks in August on a nuclear safeguards agreement under which Australian uranium would be exported to China on the condition that it be used only for peaceful purposes. China's request to invest in Australia's uranium sector is further evidence that the Chinese leadership is concerned about long-term energy security. Chinese energy companies are also scouring the globe for oil and gas reserves. "It is part of China's efforts to avoid becoming too reliant on any one energy type and to diversify sources of supply," said Victor Shum, a senior principal in Singapore with the energy consultancy Purvin & Gertz. "If you have a portion of your power requirement generated by nuclear, there is less of a need for other types of fuel." As part of a growing trade in minerals and energy between the two countries, the Australian government is expected to support Chinese investment in uranium mining when the safeguards agreement is signed. The Chinese energy company Cnooc, for example, has already signed agreements to buy stakes in Australian natural gas projects. Australia's foreign minister, Alexander Downer, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on Monday that there was "no reason" China should be excluded from investing in the Australian resources industry. Long-term supply contracts with China could galvanize Australia's uranium mining industry, which until recently had stagnated amid depressed prices and government restrictions. Uranium prices are soaring as what many experts describe as a "nuclear renaissance" gains momentum. Since 2003, the spot price for uranium on global markets has increased by more than 200 percent, to $33 a pound. Australia last year exported about 10,600 metric tons of uranium from its three working mines, which accounted for about 22 percent of global production. Government and private sector experts say exports could triple by 2010. China's request to invest in Australian uranium mines became public on Monday when Australian diplomatic cables released under freedom of information legislation were published in newspapers in Sydney and Melbourne. The cables show that China also wants to increase cooperation in nuclear science and technology. If China becomes a major buyer, mining industry analysts say, Australia could surpass Canada as the world's biggest supplier of the nuclear fuel. In a speech on Oct. 10, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the global share of electricity generated at nuclear power plants had remained constant at roughly 16 percent for about a decade. "But just in the past few years, we have witnessed a significant change in attitudes toward nuclear power," ElBaradei said. "Fast-growing global energy demands, an increased emphasis on the security of energy supply and the risk of climate change are driving a renewed consideration in many quarters towards investment in nuclear power." China is planning one of the world's biggest expansions of nuclear power, with output from nuclear reactors expected to increase sixfold by 2020. Chinese power companies now operate nine nuclear reactors, and as many as 30 new plants could be required by 2020, according to energy experts. For economic planners in Beijing, the desire to secure reliable uranium supplies and expand nuclear power generation comes at a time China's soaring oil import bill is emerging as a threat to long-term economic growth. In the first eight months of this year, China's oil import payments jumped 44 percent, to almost $30 billion, according to official government figures. China is now the world's second-biggest oil consumer, after the United States. In a report released on Thursday, the ratings concern Standard & Poor's said China last year consumed about 314 million metric tons of oil, of which about 122 million metric tons were imported. "China's startling increase in car ownership is one factor fueling its extraordinary growth in oil consumption," the report said. "The country's growing industrial base is also sucking up fuel fast." China's finance minister, Jin Renqing, said on Sunday that Beijing would introduce a range of measures aimed at reducing oil demand and curbing imports. These included higher taxes on cars with bigger engines, more investment in public transport and a renewed drive to develop alternative sources of energy. After years of encouraging foreign and domestic investment in the auto industry, China has a growing fuel bill, with cars accounting for about 30 percent of oil consumption. This is expected to rise to more than 40 percent by 2010. "We encourage automakers to increase production of vehicles with low energy consumption and low emissions," Jin said at a briefing after a meeting of the Group of 20 nations that was held near Beijing. -------- britain Fresh safety alert at Dounreay Eight workers at Dounreay are being monitored (BBC) Monday, 17 October 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4350386.stm Officials at the Dounreay nuclear complex in Caithness are dealing with the second radioactivity alert in less than three weeks. A second part of the site has been closed after tests showed traces of plutonium in eight workers. They had been working in a laboratory which is being decommissioned. A treatment plant at the nuclear site was closed last month after an escape of dangerous spent fuel, although no-one was harmed by the spill. The latest fears were triggered when the employees, who are now being monitored, had routine tests after working in the laboratory. It is the second problem to affect work on dismantling the one-time test laboratory in less than a year. It was shut down last November after a similar alert involving 15 workers. The unit remained closed until a couple of months ago. Spokesman Colin Punler said of the new scare: "One of the checks the workers go through is a nose-blow into a tissue. "Overnight last Thursday, eight of the tissue samples which the workers were asked to provide as a routine precaution came back with traces of radioactivity on them." Monitoring is being carried out after the latest problem Dounreay, which is run by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, was used as Britain's centre of fast reactor research and development from 1955 until 1994. Mr Punler added: "The more you take it apart, the greater the hazard becomes. It is proving to be a difficult job and a dirty job." Last month a treatment plant was closed after an alert involving a batch of hazardous, dissolved spent fuel. Officials said nobody had been harmed, or exposed to radioactive waste, as a result of the problem in the cementation area. No formal disciplinary action was taken against any member of the workforce following the incident. The authority said the spill was "contained within the cell", but admitted it was a "setback" to the 30-year decommissioning programme. ---- Backlash at Blair over Trident nuke plan UPI Oct 17 2005 http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051017-110920-9127r LONDON, Oct. 17 (UPI) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair is facing a backlash in his Labor Party over his decision to order a new generation of nuclear weapons. Rebel Labor Members of Parliament will meet Tuesday to coordinate their fight against his plans to replace the ageing Trident fleet at a cost of billions of dollars, which seem set to provoke one of the biggest shows of opposition to Blair from inside his own party since the start of the Iraq war in 2003, the Independent newspaper reported Monday. Opposition to an updated version of Trident includes senior figures in the military. Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer or finance minister, Gordon Brown, is believed to have privately queried the huge cost, the paper said. Last week British Defence Secretary John Reid released updated figures showing that Britain's nuclear bomb factory at Aldermaston has been given a $3.8 billion budget for the next three years. The cost of running the Atomic Weapons Establishment has averaged $580 million a year, at current prices, since 2000. Next year's costs will jump to almost $1 billion, rising still higher to about $2.8 billion over the next two years, the paper said. ---- Revealed: Blair's nuclear bombshell By Andy McSmith Published: 17 October 2005 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article320124.ece Tony Blair is facing a political backlash over his decision to order a new generation of nuclear weapons to replace the ageing Trident fleet at a cost of billions of pounds. Rebel Labour MPs will meet tomorrow to coordinate their fight against his plans, which seem set to provoke one of the biggest shows of opposition to Mr Blair from inside his own party since the start of the Iraq war. Opposition to an updated version of Trident goes far beyond MPs who object to nuclear weapons on principle. It includes senior figures in the military, who question whether this is the best way to spend a tight military budget. A senior defence department source told The Independent that there was "a serious debate" going on "at all levels" over the long-term role of the armed forces and whether a nuclear deterrent was still needed. The Chancellor, Gordon Brown, is believed to have privately queried the huge cost. An indication of the sums involved was revealed last week when the Defence Secretary, John Reid, released updated figures showing that Britain's nuclear bomb factory at Aldermaston has been given a £2bn budget for the next three years. The cost of running the Atomic Weapons Establishment has averaged £300m a year, at current prices, since 2000. Next year's costs will jump to £507m, rising still higher to about £1.5bn over the next two years. Officially, the task of Aldermaston's scientists is to ensure that the Trident fleet is kept in working order. Their real task, according to military sources, is to make sure that the scientific know-how is in place to create a whole new generation of nuclear weapons as soon as a political decision has been made. The Independent revealed in May that Mr Blair had decided to go ahead with a replacement for Trident, at a total cost likely to exceed £10bn, but that he was delaying the announcement until after the general election. In June, the Prime Minister announced that he wanted to "listen" to the views of MPs before making a final decision. However, both he and Mr Reid have pointedly avoiding saying that MPs will be given an opportunity to vote on the nuclear issue. The "listening exercise" promised by Mr Blair began at the end of last week when Mr Reid's parliamentary private secretary, Siobhain McDonagh, sent an e-mail to all Labour MPs inviting anyone concerned about nuclear weapons to meet the Defence Secretary in groups of six at a time. Although Trident's life could be extended for another 20 years, a decision on whether to replace it has to be made much sooner, because of the long "lead-in" time needed to develop and test new weapons. Mr Blair is thought to be determined to have the matter settled before he leaves 10 Downing Street. He believes that Britain owes it to the US to remain a member of the nuclear club. Yesterday, Mr Blair and the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, held talks at Chequers with the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, about the worsening relations with Iran. The US government, backed by Britain, is intent on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Critics say Britain's case is weakened if Mr Blair insists on rebuilding Britain's nuclear arsenal. Three Labour MPs - Gordon Prentice, Paul Flynn and John Austin - have drawn up a resolution questioning the cost of Trident, and have demanded a vote on it at one of the meetings which Labour MPs hold every Monday. Mr Flynn, a member of the Defence Committee of the Western European Union, said: "We haven't got any enemies that we could possibly want to aim nuclear weapons at now. The case that John Reid has given for these weapons is that we might possibly have the right sort of enemy in 15 years time, which doesn't seem like a good reason for spending billions of pounds. Our future role is going to be as peacekeepers, in which we perform better than anyone else.'" Last week, Mr Prentice met the chairman of the parliamentary party, Ann Clwyd, who urged him to drop the idea of forcing a vote, fearing that it would give an impression of a divided Labour Party. She also warned them that they would probably be defeated, and that even if they won, they would not alter government policy. "We said we were prepared to be reasonable. If she didn't want a vote in the Parliamentary Labour Party, then John Reid should come to come to the Commons so that we could have a vote there," Mr Prentice said. If they are not promised a Commons vote, the rebels have marked 31 October as they day they will force a vote among MPs. Peter Kilfoyle, a former defence minister, said: "This is at a time when they are going to cut down on both the navy and the air force. It requires a whole review of the nuclear stock and what it is for, when even the Americans are developing different types of nuclear weapons. "But there is also the politics and the macho posturing, and the issue of jobs, which we will hear a lot about." Asked about the reason for the doubling of Aldermaston's budget, a Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "The planned expenditure is aimed at maintaining key capabilities at the Atomic Weapons Establishment [AWE] to ensure that we can safely support the Trident warhead throughout its planned in-service life. In the absence of the ability to undertake live nuclear testing, given that the UK has signed and ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, it is necessary to invest in the facilities at AWE which will provide continuing assurance that the existing Trident warhead stockpile is reliable and safe." ---- The nuclear debate: Part one BBC Monday, 17 October 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4248746.stm As policy-shapers gear up to debate whether the UK should build a new generation of nuclear reactors, the BBC News website asked two prominent experts with opposing views to debate the issue. Sir David Wallace, Vice President of the Royal Society and nuclear supporter, exchanged e-mails with Tom Burke, a visiting Professor at Imperial College London and a nuclear sceptic. Dear Tom Burke, The debate about where the UK gets its energy from must be viewed in the context of climate change, which is the biggest environmental threat that we face today. The UK is on track to meet its commitment under the Kyoto Protocol to cut its emissions of greenhouse gases by 12.5% by 2012. However, the government's white paper on energy suggests that, if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change, we need to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by about 60% by the middle of this century. Yet the UK's emissions actually rose by over 2% between 2002 and 2003. Clearly we must wean ourselves off fossil fuels. But the debate about where we get our energy from must not be polarised, as it so often is, as a trade-off between renewable sources of energy and nuclear power. If we are to ensure that we are cutting our emissions of greenhouse gases drastically, while at the same time ensuring that there is security of supply, then we must develop a policy of diversity based on evidence and not ideology. In the short to medium term it is difficult to see how we can meet our energy needs without the help of nuclear power - a relatively "climate friendly" source of energy. Nuclear currently provides us with about a quarter of our electricity in the UK. But with almost all nuclear power stations reaching the end of their lives in the next 20 years it is not clear how we will make up this shortfall. It is for those that would say that this must be done without a contribution from nuclear power to answer why and how. Unfortunately - and wishful thinking will not make it otherwise - this gap is unlikely to be filled by renewable sources of energy such as wind, wave, solar or the burning of "energy crops". The UK's target of generating 10% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2010 is laudable but even this target looks ambitious. In 2002, for example, renewables accounted for just 3% of electricity. Even if we achieve the full 10% we will be more reliant on fossil fuels in 2010 than we are today, if we allow nuclear power stations to close as scheduled. As part of a comprehensive energy strategy, we should be striving energetically to meet and go beyond these targets for renewable energy. There is clearly security in diversity of supply and in the long term we would expect renewables to be able to supply a much larger proportion of our energy needs. And the UK is in a particularly good position to exploit wave and tidal power. The estimates of costs for various renewables and for nuclear remain persistently disputed. However, the economics of energy production would change if the government were to introduce a cost on all emissions of carbon dioxide through, for instance, a carbon tax. This would encourage the development of carbon free technologies - including nuclear and renewable power - and a move away from carbon based fuels in the overall energy supply, as well as promoting energy efficiency measures. Clearly, if we were to build a new generation of nuclear power stations to replace at least some of those scheduled for decommissioning, there would be very serious issues that needed to be addressed. Any plans to build new nuclear power stations must, of course, include a strategy for dealing with the serious issue of how we manage radioactive waste safely. This problem needs to be resolved regardless of whether a new generation of nuclear power stations is built because of existing radioactive waste - much of which was a product of the civil and military nuclear programmes in the 1950s - as well as new waste from the operation and decommissioning of the present generation of nuclear power stations. Additionally, the issue of how nuclear power stations would be protected from terrorist attacks would also need to be faced. We should not underestimate the challenge involved in meeting the UK's energy demands while drastically cutting emissions of greenhouse gases. It is for those that would say that this must be done without a contribution from nuclear power to answer why and how. Yours sincerely, Sir David Wallace Vice President , The Royal Society, and Vice Chancellor, Loughborough University Dear Sir David, We agree about a great deal. I share your view that combating climate change is vital to the future well being of everyone on the planet. I also agree that we must meet the growing demand for energy in a way that is compatible with a stable climate. This will indeed mean very significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. You are also right to emphasise the need to base our judgements on evidence not ideology, though I am not sure who exactly you think is taking an ideological stance. Furthermore, in relation to the UK, I agree with your conclusion that renewable energy, even with a much greater effort, will not be able to replace the electricity currently provided by those nuclear power stations that will reach the end of their life by 2020. There are two reasons why I part company with you on the role nuclear power has to play in Britain. The first concerns what is happening in the rest of the world. The second is particular to Britain. The EU has indicated that it believes allowing the planet's temperature to increase by more than 2C would be dangerous. We know from recent studies that if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere exceeds 400 parts per million the probability of remaining within this limit is low. We also know that at the current rate of increase we will pass this point in just over a decade. Time to act is very short. Globally, new coal fired power stations are being commissioned at the rate of more than one a week. More than 1,400 are forecast to be built by 2030, about 600 of them in China alone. If they are built with conventional technology there is no prospect of maintaining a stable climate whatever else we do. Many possible routes to a stable climate are technologically and economically available but there is no politically available route that does not include Chinese, Indian and North American coal, largely for energy security reasons. The Chinese energy future already includes the world's most ambitious nuclear programme but this does not significantly reduce the country's need for coal. The single most urgent task, therefore, for the world community is to prevent lock-in to carbon-intensive coal-generated electricity. If we do what is right for the planet we will have made available to Britain the advanced coal technologies that provide a more viable option for meeting our electricity needs This means bringing about the large scale deployment of advanced coal technologies with carbon sequestration and storage within the next decade to reduce these emissions to a safer level. For Britain, nuclear power is irrelevant. It is has no attractions for private investors in a competitive electricity market as it produces no revenues for at least seven years, is subject to a host of difficult to quantify socio-political risks and is only economically viable in very large tranches of perhaps 10 reactors. Financing a programme this big means paying for it out of the public purse or rigging the electricity market sufficiently to cover the private investors' risks - which would, incidentally, also considerably reduce the scope for the diversity of supply you rightly commend. Past experience with this course is not encouraging. British Energy needed a £500m rescue three years ago when electricity prices fell by almost half. To protect a 10-reactor programme from such a price fall you would have to fix the amount and price of its output long enough to at least pay for the full capital cost. It is not difficult to work out why the rest of the electricity industry and any consumer, public service or business that uses electricity might object. But let us suppose, bravely, that all these obstacles could be overcome. Even so, a new nuclear power programme cannot help Britain very much with its climate dilemma. Starting from now, the very earliest an order for a new nuclear power station could be placed is 2007. Beginning there and doing better than has ever been done before, you might have your first station operating by 2015. If you then start ordering two at a time, and do even better, you would still be lucky to have three in operation by 2020 when your nine station emission gap appears. Fortunately, if we do what is right for the planet we will have made available to Britain the advanced coal technologies that provide a more viable option for meeting our electricity needs. We have long experience in using coal to provide our electricity. It is far more attractive to private investors and would therefore require much less intervention by government - and cost to taxpayers. The brutal truth is that no-one has yet managed to work out a way of getting nuclear reactors to burn uranium as effectively as they burn money. Nor has anyone discovered how to make atoms work for peace without making them available for war. By abandoning the nuclear chimera we offer both our ourselves and the world a far more realisable option for jointly meeting our climate and our energy needs. Your sincerely, Tom Burke Visiting Professor at Imperial and University Colleges London. Co-founder of E3G, Third Generation Environmentalism. ---- Nuclear debate: Part two Monday, 17 October 2005 BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4249978.stm As policy-shapers gear up to debate whether the UK should build a new generation of nuclear reactors, the BBC News website asks two prominent experts with opposing views to debate the issue. Sir David Wallace, Vice President of the Royal Society and nuclear supporter, exchanged e-mails with Tom Burke, a visiting Professor at Imperial College London and a nuclear sceptic. In the second part of their exchange they responded to points raised in the first part. Dear Tom Burke, Yes, there is a lot on which we agree, including the urgent need for action - both within the UK and globally - and the massive scale of the task to cut emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). You are right in particular to highlight the role that the technologies of clean coal and carbon sequestration must play. As you point out, China's thirst for energy and the vast amounts of coal it has available to burn mean that taking forward these technologies will be essential if we are really to tackle global emissions. The problem is made worse by the lower energy release per ton of CO2 emitted when burning coal compared to gas. The recent rise in gas prices has led to an increase in the amount of coal burned in the UK, which has been a contributory factor in the rise in the UK's own CO2 emissions by more than 2% between 2002 and 2003 - an embarrassment when the UK is striving to establish international leadership on climate change. We agree that the successful deployment of technologies for carbon sequestration - the capture and secure storage of the emitted carbon dioxide - is essential if the problem is going to be addressed. I suspect that where we differ is that I believe that these technologies are not as readily deployable on the massive scale needed, nor are they as risk free as you imply. Specific concerns about the burning of coal include: # The capture technology exists, but it has not been tested commercially on a significant scale. Nuclear technology has matured greatly since Sizewell, our newest nuclear power station, was built in the 1980s # Globally, we currently release some 20 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every day. The infrastructure and the plant required to capture a significant fraction of this are formidable. # There is increased cost - estimated at around 15% - for sequestration compared to emission into the atmosphere, so sequestration would need regulation or financial incentives to ensure its uptake. The cost increases if capture technology is retrofitted to existing stations. And capture technologies are only one half of what we need to consider - storing it in a safe way is also problematic. Finally, we should never forget the toll exacted in the mining of coal. According to official records there were 6000 deaths in China alone last year, not to mention the injuries and damage to health which so many more suffer. All of this means for me that there are no simple solutions, no silver bullets. Every option will have to be brought into play whenever it can contribute to tackling the problem. Modern nuclear power designs have higher efficiency, and produce a much reduced volume of radioactive waste Nuclear technology has matured greatly since Sizewell, our newest nuclear power station, was built in the 1980s. Modern designs have higher efficiency, and produce a much reduced volume of radioactive waste. Including the poorly conditioned waste from early military programmes, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management has estimated the total existing UK inventory at 80,000 cubic metres of solid radioactive waste; of course this has to be dealt with, but the volume is tiny in comparison with CO2 emissions. In addition, replacement nuclear power stations would add less than 20% to it over the next 50 years or so. After much public debate, nuclear power has been accepted in Finland, and as you say, other countries have major programmes to install nuclear plant. Regardless of our choice of technologies, incentives such as a carbon tax or global carbon trading are needed to ensure that future power generation takes into account the long-term impact of carbon emissions and not just short-term economics. As the Royal Society has pointed out the current Climate Change Levy is not fit for purpose in this respect. You are right, the time to act is short and we cannot afford to get it wrong. The government has tough political choices to make in this parliament, addressing security of supply as well as climate change issues. Our short exchange can no more identify definitively those technologies that should be favoured than it can those that should be rejected. We need technologies to be ruled in at this point, not ruled out, and action taken now. Yours sincerely, David Wallace Vice President of The Royal Society and Vice Chancellor of Loughborough University Dear Sir David, I agree with you that the government has some tough political choices to make in this parliament - which leaves me baffled by your conclusion that "we need technologies to be ruled in at this point, not ruled out". Making choices is all about ruling some things out. Doing a little of everything is a recipe for doing nothing very well. It is an evasion of precisely those tough choices you argue for. It is disingenuous of you to compare the volume of radioactive waste with the volume of CO2 emissions. In my long involvement in the debate over nuclear power I do not recall anyone ever arguing that the problem with radioactive waste was that we did not have enough room on the planet to put it all in. The problem with radioactive waste is that it is radioactive. The volume, or indeed the weight, are immaterial. The issue that matters to the public is not how much there is, but how radioactive it is. Some of it will remain so for longer than recorded human history. The challenge is not that of finding enough space for it, but of finding a barrier sufficiently robust to prevent it harming human beings. The problem with radioactive waste is that it is radioactive. The volume, or indeed the weight, are immaterial There are many serious problems associated with the burning of coal other than emissions of CO2. This is why organisations such as Greenpeace are currently campaigning against its further use. These include emissions of nitrogen and sulphur dioxides which cause acid rain, fine particulates that are damaging to respiration and mercury. However, I see no politically available route to a stable climate that does not involve Chinese, Indian and North American coal for energy security reasons. Therefore we need to focus our efforts on changing the technology deployed to use that coal so as to reduce its impact on the climate. This means accelerating the deployment of coal gasification technologies. In addition, coal gasification, which allows you to extract the CO2 before combustion, not only reduces the cost of its eventual sequestration it also allows you to strip out the sulphur, mercury and particulates and to reduce the nitrogen emissions. We need to focus our efforts on changing the technology deployed to use coal so as to reduce its impact on the climate Coal gasification is not a new technology. We already have considerable experience with it. What is new is the idea of combining gasification with electricity generation and that does raise some important issues but they are institutional rather than technological. You are right to say that this will cause some incremental increase in the cost of building new coal-fired power stations. My understanding is that these are rather less than you suggest but even so they will have to be paid. I do not think the additional cost of then sequestering the CO2 will be a significant barrier to its deployment. Since there is a clear public good to be obtained from bringing about this technology shift - the maintenance of a stable climate - there is a clear case for meeting those additional cost from the public purse. We will, of course, have to do this cost-effectively by building public-private partnerships in order to get the best value for the public money spent. You are also right to raise concerns, shared by many people, about the integrity of the reservoirs in which CO2 will need to be sequestered for very long periods. It will not be enough to rely on the common sense observation that these formations have been stable for many millions of years otherwise the oil, gas or saline water in them would have found its way to the surface already. We will need to devise sophisticated monitoring systems and response plans for dealing with possible breaches of reservoir integrity but these are both well within our current technical capabilities. We share a common concern about the scale and urgency of the problem facing humanity. I think we also agree that the political choices made on energy and climate policy in the coming decade will amongst the most significant ever made in history. We differ only in our judgement as to what pattern of choice will best contribute to the task in hand. Yours sincerely, Tom Burke Visiting Professor at Imperial and University Colleges London. Co-founder of E3G, Third Generation Environmentalism. Your views: More reactors? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4340454.stm ---- N-plant documents linked to 'bomber' BY DAVID GREEN October 17, 2005 08:08 East Anglian Daily Times http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/News/NewsStory.asp?Brand=EADONLINE&Category=NEWS&ItemId=IPED16+Oct+2005+23%3A18%3A09%3A587 DRAWINGS and slides of the Sizewell B nuclear reactor in Suffolk were found in a car linked to one of the alleged London bombers, it has emerged. A nuclear expert, speaking to the EADT last night, said he was given the information after being interviewed by anti-terrorist officers. Members of the Metropolitan Police C9 anti-terrorist squad are believed to have arrested two women with suspected links to one of the alleged bombers after discovery of the documents and other materials. The included copied documents which carried the name of the nuclear expert who regularly lectures at some of Britain's top universities. A dossier found in the car also included maps and details of the types of radioactive material found at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing works in Cumbria - for some time considered a high risk terrorist target. Other papers identified vulnerable parts of nuclear power stations, how the authorities were preparing for terrorist attacks and the strategy adopted in the UK. The nuclear expert who was the source of most of the documents found spoke to the EADT last night on the condition that his identity was not revealed - because of fear of reprisals. He said almost all the documents he used in his lectures were publicly available and included copies of engineering drawings and the layout of the Sizewell B power station published during the long running public inquiry into the project. “In 2002, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, I did a series of talks at universities on the vulnerability of Britain's nuclear installations to terrorists and what the impact might be on the environment. “In the process of these lecturers I supplied hand-outs to students but there was nothing that was not freely available on the Internet or elsewhere. “One of the main strands of what I had to say was how easy it was to get information about the nuclear plants. “It is better these issues are in the open so they can be taken into account by those involved in trying to stop a further terrorist outrage,” he said. He considered the Sizewell A and B plants -both designed before the latest era of international terror - were vulnerable to attack, and not just the reactors themselves. “The fuel pond at Sizewell A, where they store the highly radioactive spent fuel rods, is like a tin shed and the storage area at Sizewell B is in a very lightweight building. “Nuclear plants and radioactive facilities were never designed to thwart terrorist attacks. Present-day defences could prove to be entirely flawed if an attack is intelligently planned and seeks out the vulnerability of the plant,” he said. The expert, who lives in the London area, said his lectures had been aimed at raising awareness of the dangers and could in no way be construed as helping terrorists. The information was freely available from other sources and it would be naive to believe that these would not be used by terrorists intent on attacking the plants. He said he always gave his email address to students at the end of lectures so they could contact him with any query and he did remember getting a request from a young woman for his paper on nuclear terrorism. Charles Barnett, chairman of the Shut Down Sizewell Campaign, said he was not surprised to hear that terrorists may have been planning to attack the local nuclear site. “The two power stations are sitting targets and the only solution is to close them down and remove the highly radioactive material,” he said. A Sizewell A spokesman said: “We do not comment on security matters.” There was no-one available to comment on behalf of Sizewell B. A Metropolitan Police Press spokeswoman said she had “no knowledge” of any incident in which nuclear documents had been found. A spokeswoman for the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, which mounts armed patrols around the Sizewell site, said: “We cannot verify this incident.” However, she added that security was always under review. ---- Backlash at Blair over Trident nuke plan Oct. 17, 2005 (UPI) http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051017-110920-9127r LONDON -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair is facing a backlash in his Labor Party over his decision to order a new generation of nuclear weapons. Rebel Labor Members of Parliament will meet Tuesday to coordinate their fight against his plans to replace the ageing Trident fleet at a cost of billions of dollars, which seem set to provoke one of the biggest shows of opposition to Blair from inside his own party since the start of the Iraq war in 2003, the Independent newspaper reported Monday. Opposition to an updated version of Trident includes senior figures in the military. Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer or finance minister, Gordon Brown, is believed to have privately queried the huge cost, the paper said. Last week British Defence Secretary John Reid released updated figures showing that Britain's nuclear bomb factory at Aldermaston has been given a $3.8 billion budget for the next three years. The cost of running the Atomic Weapons Establishment has averaged $580 million a year, at current prices, since 2000. Next year's costs will jump to almost $1 billion, rising still higher to about $2.8 billion over the next two years, the paper said. -------- business Bechtel unit gets $30M Navy deal October 17, 2005 American City Business Journals http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2005/10/17/daily1.html?t=printable A local subsidiary of construction and engineering giant Bechtel Group Inc. was awarded a $30.2 million contract to build nuclear submarine and aircraft carrier engine components for the U.S. Navy. The deal is an add-on to the one given to Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. in May. Bechtel Plant Machinery is a division of Bechtel National Inc., with a major presence in Pittsburgh, where the naval nuclear propulsion component work will be done. A nuclear-powered ship is constructed with the nuclear power plant inside a section of the ship. The components of the nuclear power plant include a high-strength steel reactor vessel, heat exchangers, and piping, pumps, and valves. The propulsion plant of a nuclear-powered ship or submarine uses a nuclear reactor to generate heat. Bechtel National acquired the former Westinghouse Electric Corp.'s nuclear submarine divisions in Pittsburgh and Schenectady, N.Y. in an April 1999 deal with CBS Corp. Westinghouse had purchased CBS in 1995. CBS merged with Viacom Inc. in 1999. Bechtel Plant Machinery employs roughly 550 engineers and project managers in its Pittsburgh location, and more than 330 staff members at a location in Schenectady. -------- china China seeks uranium mine 17 oct 05 Australia Mercury News http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16941471%255E462,00.html CHINA has asked the Federal Government if it can conduct uranium exploration and mining operations in Australia. Confidential diplomatic cables obtained by The Age newspaper show the Chinese told Australian officials of their interest in "uranium mining and exploration in Australia" at a meeting in Beijing in February. The deputy director-general of China's National Development and Reform Commission, Wang Jun, had asked Australian officials: "Would Australia permit Chinese involvement?" The director-general of the Australian Nuclear Safeguards Office, John Carlson, told Mr Wang there would be no restrictions at the federal level, but warned that state and territory governments – responsible for licensing mining and exploration – opposed further uranium mining and exploration. "It was hoped political attitudes would change, but this was likely to take some time," Mr Carlson said. Another cable, released by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to The Age, shows Chinese officials asked to expand the scope of the agreement to include uranium exploration, as well as co-operation on nuclear science and technology. In August, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Australia was negotiating a safeguards agreement with China regarding uranium exports. Australia had sent agreement documentation to China and was awaiting a response. The prospect of China conducting mining and exploration operations has not been raised publicly. In a statement to The Age, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) said: "Owning or part-owning an Australian uranium mining company – or making a new Chinese-controlled investment in uranium in Australia – is not a short cut to buying uranium and does not circumvent in any way our export controls or safeguards." Nuclear proliferation expert Richard Broinowski said allowing China to conduct uranium operations in Australia would make it harder to ensure the material was used only for civil power generation. Professor Broinowski told the newspaper that while China might use Australian uranium for power generation, it could then use its own uranium resources for military purposes. Australia has about 40 per cent of the world's uranium reserves and three uranium mines in operation – two in South Australia and one in the Northern Territory. In August, Canberra assumed control of mining rights in the NT, declaring it "open for business" for uranium mining, subject to environmental and Aboriginal approvals. Last year Australia exported 9648 tonnes of uranium, 39 per cent to the US, 25 per cent to Japan, 25 per cent to the EU, 10 per cent to Korea and 1 per cent to Canada. -------- iran Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come by Jorge Hirsch, October 17, 2005 Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7649 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10644.htm The stage is set for a chain of events that could lead to nuclear war over chemical weapons in the immediate future. If these events unfold, the trigger will be Israel, the target Iran, the nuclear aggressor the U.S. These are the reasons: * The U.S. State Department determined in August 2005 that "Iran is in violation of its CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] obligations because Iran is acting to retain and modernize key elements of its CW infrastructure to include an offensive CW R&D capability and dispersed mobilization facilities." * According to the CIA, "Iran likely has already stockpiled blister, blood, choking, and probably nerve agents – and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them – which it previously had manufactured." * According to (then undersecretary for arms control and international security, now U.S. ambassador to the UN) John Bolton's testimony to the House of Representatives (June 24, 2004), "We believe Iran has a covert program to develop and stockpile chemical weapons," and on Iran's ballistic missiles, "Iran continues its extensive efforts to develop the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction," and "The 1,300-km range Shahab-3 missile is a direct threat to Israel, Turkey, U.S. forces in the region, and U.S. friends and allies." * In the IAEA resolution of Sept. 24 [.pdf], Iran was found to be in "noncompliance" with its NPT safeguards agreements. * Members of the Israeli parliament from across the political spectrum are urging the United States to stop Iran's nuclear programs, or Israel will "act unilaterally." Statements of grave concern about Iran's nuclear program have been made by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, and Mossad chief Meir Dagan (Iran poses an "existential threat" to Israel). Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter accuses Iran of plotting relentlessly to attack Israeli targets. * According to the head of the Russian Atomic Energy Organization, Alexander Rumyantsev, Russia will ship the first cargo of nuclear fuel for Iran's Bushehr's reactor at the end of 2005 or early 2006. * Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor (which was under IAEA supervision) in 1981 just before nuclear fuel was loaded into it (to prevent nuclear fallout). * President Bush has said that "all options are on the table" if diplomacy fails to halt Iran's nuclear program. * The U.S. House of Representatives on May 6, 2004, by a vote of 376-3, called on the United States to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. * In the recently released draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" [.pdf], the Pentagon states that it will respond to the threat of WMD (which includes chemical and biological weapons) with nuclear weapons. Conclusion: according to Israel, the U.S. administration, and 99.2 percent of the U.S. House of Representatives, Iran will not be allowed to have access to any nuclear technology. No diplomatic options to achieve that goal will remain when Russia and China veto Security Council sanctions, or if the IAEA refuses on Nov. 24 to refer Iran to the Security Council. Military action will occur before Russia ships uranium fuel to Iran, and will inevitably lead to the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. against Iran. How will it all get started? No matter how much Bush and Cheney want it, the U.S. Senate is unlikely to authorize the bombing of Iranian installations out of the blue. Unless there is some major disturbance in Iraq that can be blamed on Iran, Israel is likely to pull the trigger. It knows how to and has every motivation to do so. Once Israel drops the first bomb on an Iranian nuclear facility, as it did with Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, there is no return. Bushehr is likely to be the first target; other installations will follow. Iran will respond – how can it not? At a minimum, it will shoot missiles at Israel. It may or may not shoot at U.S. forces in Iraq initially, but given the U.S.-Israel "special relationship," there is no way the U.S. will stay out of the conflict. Many of Iran's targeted facilities are underground, and U.S. bombs will be needed to destroy them all. Once the U.S. enters the conflict, 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will be at risk of Iranian missiles with chemical warheads, or of being overrun by Iran's conventional forces streaming into Iraq. According to the Pentagon planning [.pdf], nuclear weapons will be used: * "To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD." * "Against an adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S., multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations…" * "[O]n adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons or the C2 infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies" * "[T]o counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces…" * "For rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms…" * "To ensure success of U.S. and multinational operations…" That makes six independent reasons for nuking Iran. The first nuclear bomb used in an act of war after "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" should be code-named "Demo" – for "demonstration" that we can do it, don't mess with us, for "democracy" on the rise in the Middle East, and for the "Democrats" in Congress who will go along with the program. As with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we will be told it saved lives, ours and theirs. You know the script. The upshot: a nuclear superpower will have nuked a non-nuclear state that is an NPT signatory and is cooperating with the IAEA, at the instigation of a state that is not an NPT signatory, that reportedly has over 100 nuclear bombs of its own, and that initiated hostilities with an unprovoked act of military aggression. Given these prospects, the U.S. government should be doing its utmost to restrain Israel, yet it is doing exactly the opposite. It should be trying to achieve a diplomatic solution, but it refuses to even talk to Iran. The ongoing diplomatic effort by the EU is simply designed to provide cover for the planned military action, just as in the case of Iraq. How many times must Bush play the same game before the EU finally learns it is being used? And how many times will it take for the U.S. citizenry to learn? The U.S. public and its representatives in Congress, preoccupied with the deception and subsequent disaster of the Iraq invasion, are blind to the enormously bigger deception and disaster unfolding just before their eyes. Do the majority of American citizens, from whom the authority of the administration is derived, really want to be drawn by Israel into a nuclear conflict? Is this really in the United States' best interest? The sane world needs to tell the U.S. and Israeli governments to back off. And the United States needs to tell Israel, in no uncertain terms, that it will not allow (American-supplied) Israeli bombers carrying (American supplied) bunker-busting bombs over Iraqi airspace, and that it will not aid, abet, or condone such an attack. By not demanding this of the Bush administration, the U.S. Congress is complicit in what is about to happen and is betraying the trust of the people it represents. There is a rational way to avoid this disaster. * Let Iran pursue a civilian nuclear program. Over 30 countries have civilian nuclear programs, while only nine have nuclear weapons. Let the Nobel-prize winning IAEA and Mohamed ElBaradei do their job! * The U.S. can guarantee Israel's safety by assuring Israel that any threat to its existence from a non-nuclear nation will be met with the full force of U.S. conventional forces, and any threat from a nuclear nation will be met with U.S. nuclear forces. * If Iran were to withdraw from the NPT and not allow international supervision of its programs, it would still take several years for it to acquire a nuclear weapon. There would still be plenty of time to act. Otherwise? Welcome to the new world order, where the U.S. can nuke any non-nuclear country at will. Refrain from having a nuclear deterrent at your own risk. All nations that can will become nuclear, others on their way will be nuked, and all-out nuclear war will become an absolute certainty. Bye-bye, world. Jorge Hirsch is a professor of physics at the University of California San Diego. ---- US ratchets up the pressure on Iran AGENCIES, LONDON AND TEHRAN Monday, Oct 17, 2005, Page 1 Taipei Times http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2005/10/17/2003276123 LOOKING FOR SUPPORT: The US' top diplomat is in the UK seeking help in isolating Iran over its nuclear program, after Russia took Tehran's side in the dispute US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice turned up the heat on Iran over its nuclear ambitions after a bruising trip to Russia and ahead of a meeting yesterday with key ally British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Rice, who arrived in London on Saturday, also warned Tehran against stoking the insurgency in neighboring Iraq after Britain alleged that recent attacks on troops there may be linked to Iran and the militant group Hezbollah. In its defense, Iran's envoy to Britain rejected Washington's belief that the Islamic republic sought to develop nuclear weapons and insisted it needed nuclear energy to replace oil stocks when they run out. Ambassador Seyed Mohammed Hossein Adeli also denied that his country was involved in Iraq's insurgency. Rice said Iran must resume negotiations with the EU on finding an acceptable solution to the nuclear issue. In an interview with the BBC, she said referral to the UN Security Council was on the cards "when the diplomacy has run its course." "The Iranians need to go back to the negotiating table," said Rice. Talks with the so-called EU-3 -- Britain, France and Germany -- broke down in August. At that time, Iran ended a freeze on fuel cycle work by resuming uranium conversion -- a precursor to potentially dual-use enrichment work. "They need to come to a conclusion that will allow them, if they wish [for] civil nuclear energy, to do that without raising concerns in the international community," Washington's top diplomat said. Iran also said yesterday that it wanted to return to nuclear negotiations with the EU, but gave no ground on the EU's key demand that it halt all nuclear fuel processing before talks can resume. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi accused the US of upping the pressure on IAEA board members to refer Iran to the Council. "America and Rice are pressuring other countries to vote against Iran, but we hope those countries act independently," Asefi said. "The Council cannot be used as a Sword of Damocles against Iran. We cannot be threatened by referral," he said. The US and the EU-3 have been lobbying members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, to refer Iran to the UN Security Council over its nuclear activities. The agency's governing council is due to meet again on Nov. 24, but Rice avoided setting this date as a deadline for a decision. "The Security Council option is there, at a time of our choosing," she said. However, not all IAEA members back the move. Russia rallied behind Iran when Rice paid a brief visit to Moscow to meet Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin earlier Saturday following a whirlwind tour of Central Asia and a trip to Paris. ---- Iran wants nuclear talks without concessions Pakistan Daily Times 17 Oct 2005 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005%5C10%5C17%5Cstory_17-10-2005_pg4_16 TEHRAN: Iran insisted on Sunday that it wanted to return to nuclear negotiations with the European Union but gave no ground on the EU’s key demand that it halt all nuclear fuel processing before talks can resume. “We are ready to continue unconditional talks and hope to reach a result through talks and avoid the Council,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told a news conference. “Iran will never again suspend Isfahan facility’s activities. It was a voluntary measure and was lifted automatically,” Asefi said. Washington and the EU are trying to persuade the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to send Iran to the Security Council in November for violating international nuclear obligations. Sword of damocles: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice failed on Saturday to win Russia’s support for referring Iran to the Council, but said Washington still expects to be able to refer Tehran to the Council “at a time of our choosing” if diplomatic efforts fail. But with Russia leery of punitive measures against a country it has strong commercial ties with, Putin was unmoved and reaffirmed Russia’s position that the IAEA must deal with Iran. “The Council cannot be used as a Sword of Damocles against Iran. We cannot be threatened by referral,” Asefi said. Former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said on Saturday Iran was ready to resolve the nuclear impasse through diplomacy. “Tehran is ready to begin talks on the country’s nuclear dossier without any preconditions,” Rafsanjani was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency. Iranian media have speculated that Rafsanjani has been authorised by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to lead Iran out of the nuclear standoff. reuters ---- Iran suspends NPT additional protocol until IAEA recognizes its rights Iran-UN, Politics, 10/17/2005 Arabic News http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/051017/2005101737.html The Iranian Majlis' National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Sunday approved the general outlines of a single-urgency bill providing for the suspension of the government's voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), IRNA reported. Talking to IRNA, commission member Mahmoud Mohammadi said the general outlines of the bill was discussed by the commission during its Sunday session and was approved by a vote of the majority. The report said: Members of the commission gave their proposals on various details of the bill and agreed to put one of the proposals to a vote on Tuesday, he added. "In this proposal, the government would be obligated to suspend voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports Iran's nuclear case to the UN Security Council," he said. The government of former president Mohammad Khatami implemented the Additional Protocol as a voluntary measure in order to build confidence on the part of the international community on the government's nuclear programs. This opened the way for the IAEA to undertake snap inspections on the country's nuclear sites, but the decision was never passed into law by the Majlis. In the wake of the September anti-Iran resolution passed by the IAEA's 35-nation Governing Board, over 155 MPs introduced a single- urgency bill in Majlis urging the government to suspend implementation of the Additional Protocol. The bill was passed on September 28 with 162 votes in favor. The bill now binds the government to suspend its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) until Tehran succeeds in obtaining recognition of its right to complete the nuclear fuel cycle. ---- IAEA may give Iran more time By PYOTR GONCHAROV Outside View Contributor, Oct. 17, 2005 (UPI) http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051017-015857-6958r MOSCOW -- Will the Iran nuclear file be referred to the United Nations Security Council as the recent resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors suggests? Most likely, at its next session in November, the board will for the umpteenth time give Iran one more chance to reach compromise with the world community on its nuclear program. The IAEA and the three European countries -- Britain, France and Germany, known as the EU3 -- or maybe more nations, will take part in the negotiations on behalf of the world community. At any rate, this will be the most sensible option for several reasons. At a recent session, 22 out of 34 members of the IAEA Board of Governors voted to refer the Iran nuclear file for the consideration of the U.N. Security Council, as negotiations between Iran and EU3 were on the verge of breaking down. One voted against, with 11 abstaining. With some reservations, we can say that there were 22 Westerners against 12 pro-Iranians. The meeting was immediately followed by the rotation of 10 non-permanent members of the board. As a result, the "pro-Iranian" faction may become stronger at the next session. The five obvious Westerners were replaced with just three that are likely to vote for sending the Iran file to the Security Council: Greece, Norway, and Slovenia. As for the seven new members, Belarus, Cuba, and Syria are markedly pro-Iranian, while Egypt, Indonesia, Columbia, and Libya remain neutral. The alignment may become 17 vs. 17 if Libya, which sacrificed its nuclear program to Washington, does not vote "for." The majority is not likely to back Iran. Still, in the opinion of Vladimir Yevseyev, an expert from the Moscow Carnegie Center, the new alignment will have an effect on the general atmosphere of the debates. In addition, much will depend on the position taken by Russia and China. At the last board meeting, Russia and China abstained from voting, although during the discussion they had been emphatically against reporting Iran to the U.N. Security Council. Yevseyev qualified the two countries' neutrality as a small concession to the European Union and the United States, which have done a lot to reach a consensus with Beijing and Moscow on the Iranian problem. One example is the IAEA resolution itself, which says that the Iran file will be submitted to the U.N. Security Council only if Iran goes for a full nuclear fuel cycle. This is an important reservation. Besides, although many Europeans insisted on reporting Iran to the U.N. immediately, the resolution still has not fixed a specific date. This is another obvious concession to Russia and China. If Russia and China continue to insist that IAEA and Iran have not yet exhausted opportunities for cooperation, other board members, who voted "for" at the previous meeting, are likely to change their position. At any rate, there are grounds to say that France can join Russia and China. In the month before the next meeting of the board, Iran, the IAEA, and the EU3 will keep looking for compromise and for a convenient wording of the resumption of the negotiating process. IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei said recently in Moscow that Iran has a chance to avoid Security Council sanctions if it cooperates with IAEA to resolve the outstanding issues. El Baradei said that the IAEA wanted to find a peaceful solution to the Iranian issue, and that it was only natural that everyone was talking about the need to resume the negotiations between Europe and Iran. He urged all sides to return to the negotiating table, and expressed his conviction in that they understand how important this step was. El Baradei quoted Iranian leaders as saying that Iran was ready to cooperate with IAEA. Importantly, now that El Baradei has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, his words carry more weight. Tehran has already made a step forward by declaring that it leaves the door open for the return to the negotiating table. As usual, it has made a number of reservations. Will the West accept them? Now the ball is in the EU3 court. (Pyotr Goncharov is a political commentator for the RIA Novosti news agency. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti.) -------- japan JAPANESE TO BUILD NUCLEAR SHIP FOR BARROW Published on 17/10/2005 NW Evening Mail http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=292477 THE latest nuclear ship for Sellafield is to built in Japan under a £30m contract. British Nuclear Group today confirmed that a new nuclear transporter would be built and designed by Japanese shipbuilders Mitsui Engineering near Tokyo. The INF 3 Class vessel, which will form part of Pacific Nuclear Transport Limited (PNTL), is expected to be delivered in November 2007 and will be based in Barrow. BNG said the yet-to-be named vessel will be developed on the design of the current ships which have cargo compartments protected by a double hull. BNFL needs nuclear ships to operate until at least 2017 when current contracts for carrying or returning nuclear waste and new Mox fuel, run out. BAE was not chosen for the work, although experts said the project would not be right for Barrow shipyard. -------- latinamerica Venezuela is trying to get nuclear technology: report Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:32 AM ET (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051017/pl_afp/usvenezuelairan_051017133213 WASHINGTON - The Venezuelan government has approached several countries with a view to obtaining nuclear technology, the Washington Times reported, saying some US officials were worried President Hugo Chavez might be embarking on a nuclear weapons programme. Overtures have been made to Iran, according to a Bush administration official monitoring Latin America, the paper said. Washington insists Iran is pursuing a covert nuclear weapons program, a charge Tehran denies, saying its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. "We are keeping an eye on Venezuela," the report quotes an unnamed senior official as saying. "My sense is that Venezuela has not been as successful with its nuclear entreaties with other countries as it would have liked." The administration official said there is no clear evidence that Chavez wants to develop nuclear weapons, The Times said. But, the source said, there is consistent intelligence reporting that his government has discussed obtaining technology from other countries, the paper pointed out. Chavez, a populist who has ratcheted up his anti-American rhetoric, is in the middle of a military buildup that some analysts in the Bush administration fear is a precursor to eroding democracy, according to the report. "Chavez would like to have everything. He has the money to do it," the paper quotes another official as saying. "He wants new fighter jets. He wants to put a satellite in space." The most troubling for the Bush administration are Chavez's close ties with Iran, The Times noted. He visited Tehran last year and held a series of meetings with the ruling mullahs. He then publicly supported Iran's quest for a huge nuclear industry. "They are quite kissy-kissy with Iran," the paper quotes an unnamed official as saying. "There is a lot of back and forth. Iranians show up at Venezuelan things. They are both pariah states that hang out together." ---- Brazil in talks with Venezuela on nuclear energy assistance Xinhua Financial News (October 17, 2005) http://pepei.pennnet.com/news/display_news_story.cfm?Section=WIREN&Category=HOME&NewsID=126628 BRASILIA, Oct 17, 2005 (XFN-ASIA via COMTEX) -- Brazil is discussing with Venezuela the possibility of cooperating in the field of nuclear energy, Brazilian media reported yesterday, citing a foreign policy adviser to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Marco Aurelio Garcia. Last week, Argentina's foreign minister Rafael Bielsa confirmed a report that Venezuela was seeking to buy a medium-sized nuclear power reactor from Argentina. Garcia was quoted as saying that such a cooperation would not pose any problems as the three countries have transparent and pacific nuclear programmes which exclude any military use. Analysts at Goldman Sachs have expressed concern that Venezuela's interest in acquiring nuclear technology is "likely to raise eyebrows in the international community and neighbouring countries, and strain even further the already complex relationship with the United States". newsdesk@afxnews.com -------- u.s. nuc weapons America's Catastrophic Nuclear Administration By Bhuwan Thapaliya, 10/17/2005 http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=1289&cid=1&sid=37 We are living at a critical juncture of the human history-perhaps not as dramatic as that of the Cold War catastrophe, but a moment no less crucial laced by the threats of the nuclear turmoil and the weapons of the mass destruction. The only question that has been recurring again and again is, "How long can the world avert another nuclear catastrophe after that double strike by the United States in August 1945? " One atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Around 80,000 people died immediately; approximately 200,000 died eventually. Later, a similar size bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. On Nov. 7, 1995, the mayor of Nagasaki recalled his memory of the attack in testimony to the International Court of Justice: Nagasaki became a city of death where not even the sound of insects could be heard. After a while, countless men, women and children began to gather for a drink of water at the banks of nearby Urakami River, their hair and clothing scorched and their burnt skin hanging off in sheets like rags. Begging for help they died one after another in the water or in heaps on the banks. Four months after the atomic bombing, 74,000 people were dead, and 75,000 had suffered injuries, that is, two-thirds of the city population had fallen victim to this calamity that came upon Nagasaki like a preview of the Apocalypse. The hyper destructive power of the nuclear weapons is well known, but given the United States' growing dependency on the nuclear power, is simultaneously eroding the international norms that have limited the spread of nuclear weapons. To make the matter worse, The Bush administration has hinted that it is committed to keeping the U.S. nuclear arsenal as a stronghold of its military power. However, the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) officially recognizes five nations as possessing nuclear weapons. These are the US, the first to acquire nuclear capability in 1945, Russia (1949), the UK (1952), France (1960) and China (1964). The Arms Control Association (ACA), a US weapons research organization, estimates the number of strategic warheads held by these states to be about 6,000 for the US, 5,000 for Russia, 300 for China, 350 for France and under 200 for the UK, according to a report in BBC News online edition ("Nuclear Weapons: Who has what?" 11 Feb, 2005) The new nuclear states of Pakistan and India have fewer than 100 weapons each. North Korea now claims to have developed nuclear weapons, and U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that Pyongyang has enough fissile material for 2-8 bombs. As information about nuclear arsenals is secret, these are only estimates about their nuclear weapons. But there is no denying the fact that these weapons are very destructive. "The average U.S. warhead has a destructive power 20 times that of the Hiroshima bomb. Of the 8,000 active or operational U.S. warheads, 2,000 are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on 15 minutes' warning, " according to, Robert McNamara, the former US defence secretary. After the war in Iraq, The United States is focused, for logical reasons, on persuading North Korea to rejoin the treaty and on negotiating deeper constraints on Iran's nuclear ambitions citing that both Iran and North Korea are unpredictable regimes whose possession of nuclear weapons would be dangerous in its own right and might also persuade other countries in their neighborhoods to go nuclear as well. But the attention of many nations, including some potential new nuclear weapons states, is also on the United States. "Keeping such large numbers of weapons, and maintaining them on hair-trigger alert, is potent signs that the United States is not seriously working toward the elimination of its arsenal and raises troubling questions as to why any other state should restrain its nuclear ambitions," said Robert McNamara. He further said that, "In addition to projecting the deployment of large numbers of strategic nuclear weapons far into the future, the Bush administration is planning an extensive and expensive series of programs to sustain and modernize the existing nuclear force and to begin studies for new launch vehicles, as well as new warheads for all of the launch platforms." Whatsoever, some members of the Bush administration have called for new nuclear weapons that could be used as bunker busters against underground shelters. The Bush administration has no intention to ask congress to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). It is crystal clear that the Bush administration assumes that nuclear weapons will be part of U.S. military forces for at least the next several decades. If the United States continues its current nuclear stance, over time, substantial proliferation of nuclear weapons will almost surely follow. Some, or all, of such nations as Egypt, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Taiwan will very likely initiate nuclear weapons programs, increasing both the risk of use of the weapons and the diversion of weapons and fissile materials into the hands of rogue states or terrorists. The United States should lead from the front and not play the game of hide and seek with the world. Its nuclear policy should be overhauled, if it is to enforce its voice in the global arena. It must learn a lesson from countries like Ukraine, which renounced the nuclear system they inherited on their territory in the soviet era; Argentina and Brazil who dropped the nuclear capability they were developing after negotiating a non-nuclear pact between themselves and South Africa, which dismantled its nuclear weapons after the collapse of the apartheid regime. Repeatedly chanting the melodramatic mantra "axis of evil" will never give Mr. Bush the mandate to ignite the fervor towards the global peace. To be taken even half seriously in future, He must take a step to eliminate his own nuclear weapons before telling the world to do so. Furthermore, The United States must no longer rely on nuclear weapons as a foreign-policy tool. This policy would endanger the global peace prospect and would put the world in a further catastrophic dilemma. Critics also question the wisdom of developing such weapons and say, "The United States is the only country to have ever dropped an atomic bomb- the world's fears are not irrational." Thus, The United States must move promptly toward the elimination-or near elimination-of all its own nuclear weapons and encourage others to do the same. Finally, When Soviet Union collapsed; the United States was given the opportunity to bring about a permanent world peace through the development of an international program of disarmament and arms control. So, it should honor the Non-Proliferation Treaty and move toward a more secure world in which no nation can threaten the ultimate horror of atomic war. After all, this has been a major goal of the United Nations since its establishment in 1945. Bhuwan Thapaliya is a Nepalese journalist and book author. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- california Controversial development proposed for Salton Sea ASSOCIATED PRESS 1:12 p.m. October 17, 2005 http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20051017-1312-wst-saltonsea-development.html SALTON CITY – The agency that manages the Salton Sea wants to build up to 200,000 homes around the state's largest lake, including some on a former atomic weapons testing site. Under the plan, the agency would sell the shuttered Salton Sea Test Base to developers and use the proceeds and property tax revenue from the new homes to clean and restore the polluted lake about 90 miles northeast of San Diego. The plan could entail moving to the east the boundaries of the Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge, which is a key stopover on the Pacific Flyway for more than 100,000 migrating birds. "All we want to do is create the opportunity for development to occur to create a revenue stream for our plan," said Imperial County Supervisor Gary Wyatt, chairman of the Salton Sea Authority board. "You create a lake that has good, clean water." Critics worry that development could eliminate resting and nesting places for more than 400 species of birds. They also fear the 7,800-acre former military base is polluted, possibly with depleted uranium from some of the 1,100 mock bombs that were tested there until 1961. "So would you like to put your house on that test base?" said Dale Hoffman-Floerke, chief of the Colorado River and Salton Sea office for the state Department of Water Resources. "Unequivocally, no, I wouldn't put my house there." The 370-square-mile sea was created in 1905 when floodwaters broke through a Colorado River irrigation canal. It is fed mostly by agricultural runoff. Citigroup Inc. is conditionally prepared to underwrite more than $600 million in bonds to finance the proposed development. The authority's board is scheduled to vote Oct. 27 on the plan, which also must be approved by federal and state agencies. Homes would be built over 30 to 40 years. The plan would include an eight-mile dam across the sea, creating a large north lake, and a smaller lake and wetlands in the south. Salton Sea Authority Director Ron Enzweiler said there was no record of nuclear activities or material on the former base. Additional tests would be done before houses were built, he said. Restoration of the lake is mandated under federal and state legislation allowing half of its water to be transferred to urban areas for up to 75 years beginning in 2017. On the Net: http://www.saltonsea.ca.gov/ -------- nevada Nuclear irony finds French power company ads in Nevada By Benjamin Grove LAS VEGAS SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU October 17, 2005 http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-other/2005/oct/17/519519299.html WASHINGTON -- A French nuclear power company's flashy new advertising campaign promoting new U.S. nuclear power plants has popped up, strangely, in Nevada. Nevermind that the state would not likely be home to any of Areva's "cleaner, safer, more efficient" power plants of the future and all that bountiful new electricity. But Nevada could be home to the waste. The Paris-based company Areva, which recently formed a partnership with the firm Constellation Energy with the goal of building a new generation of U.S. plants, launched the $6.5 million advertising campaign in June. National television commercials, newspaper and news magazine advertisements are scheduled to run through November. The 30-second television commercial zips the viewer along on an animated tour of how nuclear plants work, beginning with the mining of uranium ore for the reactor core fuel rods and ending with a shiny new nuclear plant, set by a blue stream, powering the skyscrapers of a modern city. Of course, in Nevada, people know that the nuclear power generation cycle doesn't end quite there. It ends with highly radioactive waste coming out of those nuclear reactors. And for now, the nation's plan to deal with the deadly material is to dump it at Yucca Mountain -- 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas -- for permanent burial. An Areva spokeswoman acknowledged that there was an irony to her company's commercials airing in Nevada. "I can see where you are coming from," Areva spokeswoman Penny Phelps said said with a laugh, "but we couldn't cut out the airwaves to omit Nevada." -------- oregon OSU and Reed officials claim their nuclear reactors safe October 17, 2005 Associated Press http://www.katu.com/stories/80430.html PORTLAND, Ore. - Stung by a national television report on lax security at campuses with research nuclear reactors, officials at Oregon State University and Reed College are defending the safety measures in place at their respective schools, the only two in Oregon with research reactors. ABC's "Primetime" sent 10 journalism students to the 25 U.S. colleges and universities that have research reactors to determine how vulnerable they might be to terrorists. In their report, "Primetime" showcased unlocked building doors, unstaffed guard booths, and guided tours that provided access to control rooms and reactor pools. Neither of the Oregon schools were a focus of the ABC report. The interns' reports indicated they did not enter the buildings at Reed or OSU where the small reactors are housed, but there were no guards at either facility and that both schools give tours. Still, Reed College officials said the findings were flawed. "The interns who came here never saw the reactor," said Beth Sorensen, a college spokeswoman, told The Oregonian. "They did not correctly identify the building the reactor is in; they never went on a tour; they were never in or near the reactor." Sorensen said the college follows tough security measures required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees the reactors. Todd Simmons, an Oregon State spokesman, said the university has detailed security plans to safeguard both the people and the material in the Radiation Center. Reed's reactor produces about 250 kilowatts of heat, about 10 times as much as a home-heating furnace. The larger Oregon State reactor can generate 1,000 kilowatts. Both reactors are used for teaching and research involving medicine, chemistry, geology, physics and other fields. Roy P. Zimmerman, director of the NRC's Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, said in a letter to ABC that the reactors have only small quantities of radioactive material. Any attempt to sabotage a facility or steal the nuclear material "would trigger an armed response," he said. -------- pennsylvania Residents Pay More As Power Plant Fights Tax Assessment POSTED: 2:54 pm EDT October 17, 2005 PA-WGAL http://www.wgal.com/8onyourside/5108312/detail.html PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIP, Pa. -- In rural southeastern York County, the cost of school has just gone up -- way up. "It's ridiculous. It's absolutely ridiculous," said Tom Ashwell, of Peach Bottom Township. The Ashwells' bill, and just about every other school tax bill in the southeastern York School District, jumped 27.6 percent this year. "It's tough cause, you know, we have day care and we commute into the city -- into Baltimore City. So it's tough," said Leslie Ashwell. But it is not so tough for one very large corporation in the area. There was no tax increase this year -- or over any of the last 5 years -- for the Peach Bottom Nuclear Power Plant, which is owned by Exelon Generation. The plant pays well below, millions less, than what a county assessment says it should. "Probably not fair-- and it's a tremendous burden on the taxpayer," said Southeastern School Superintendent Tom McShane of the situation. The assessment centers around an argument over what can be taxed at the power plant. York County assessed it in the late '90s, as part of energy deregulation, at $304 million. Exelon said that was not a fair assessment and that the plant should be taxed at a much lower value. A company spokesman would not tell News 8 what that value is. "The law allows for the taxing of real property -- not equipment in the plants, so that's where the big difference comes in," said Pete Resler of Exelon Nuclear. So while there are arguments over what is equipment and what's not, Exelon has agreed to pay a fraction of its tax bill. That interim agreement brings in about one-sixth of the money Exelon would owe for the plant. The district signed on to this temporary agreement five years ago, but now says the full amount would make a difference. ”We wouldn't be talking about a tax increase," McShane said. Peach Bottom Plant Not Alone Peach Bottom is not the only plant where Exelon is fighting its tax bill. Over the past year, it has settled at two other plants rather successfully. The company has established a track record of winning huge reductions in its tax bills. Its Limerick nuclear plant in suburban Philadelphia was assessed at $912 million, but Exelon argued it was worth zero and a settlement with the local school district and the township this year dropped the assessed value to $20 million. That's a 98 percent reduction. Three Mile Island is an Exelon owned plant. At Three Mile Island in Dauphin County, more than $64 million was the first assessment. But a settlement lowered that to $18¼ million, a reduction of 72 percent. The York Galleria Mall is taxed at more than 2½ times that amount. "It's disappointing, obviously," said Jim Hazen of the Lower Dauphin School District. But with no end in sight, after three years of fighting over TMI and nearly $42,000 already spent by the Lower Dauphin School District in legal fees, lawyers advised the district to settle. "Do they have an advantage over a local school district, a local township with a five-man board of supervisors? Sure," Hazen said. "We negotiated a settlement that we could live with." The Lower Dauphin superintendent called it "a bitter pill to swallow." In Limerick, where $250,000 was spent to fight Exelon, a school district official told News 8 he does not believe the settlement is fair. He said the plant was treated "totally different than another big commercial property." News 8's Ben Simmoneau asked Hazen what he though of Exelon's situation. Simmneau: "In the school district's opinion, are they paying their fair share of taxes?" Hazen: "That's a tough one. They pay what their assessment is. Just like you or I would pay what our house is assessed at." Resler said the company is living up to the law. "We are committed to paying our fair share of taxes. Nobody wants to pay more taxes than the law says they should," he said. But what does that mean for Southeastern York County? "They're a huge corporation. It could be an example of David and Goliath," McShane said. "I wouldn't say that I'm nervous -- maybe a little apprehensive." The Ashwells are not waiting to see what happens. They're moving back to Maryland. "This tax increase pushed us," Tom Ashwell said. -------- MILITARY -------- us Big Cuts in Defense Programs Seen Looming By REUTERS Published: October 17, 2005 Filed at 3:30 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-arms-spending.html WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Major U.S. weapons programs are facing big cuts given mounting budget pressures from the war in Iraq, rising fuel and personnel costs, and the need to rebuild the U.S. Gulf Coast, defense analysts said on Monday. The military services -- the Air Force, the Navy and the Army -- are drafting lists of programs that could be cut back before the White House's Office of Management and Budget issues its guidance to the Pentagon in mid-November. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley lifted the veil on the highly secretive process last week when he said told a Washington audience it might be time to start ``killing'' programs with cost overruns and delays. Officials at all three services have also talked more about the need to work on joint programs, rather than continue to fund separate programs with similar objectives, such as surveillance programs, which could also help trim costs. Cuts to major weapons programs could be ``well in excess'' of $10 billion just for fiscal year 2007, said Loren Thompson of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute, predicting that fighter jets and shipbuilding were particularly vulnerable to cuts. He said Pentagon officials appeared likely to issue another ''Program Budget Decision,'' like the one leaked last Christmas which cut $55 billion from several big programs over the next years -- although some of those cuts were never implemented. A Pentagon team on October 5 recommended several steps, such as canceling the DD(X) destroyer being developed by Northrop Grumman Corp.; cutting tactical air forces by nearly a third; further delaying the Army's Future Combat Systems program, led by Boeing Co.; building more fast sealift ships and submarines; and developing a new long-range bomber, according to sources familiar with the briefing. ``The administration is determined to use the need for budget cuts to enforce its investment priorities,'' Thompson said, predicting the Pentagon would cut Cold War programs such as airplanes, ships and ground vehicles, while maintaining funds for information networks, surveillance systems, communications and satellite programs. Lawmakers' priorities were exactly opposite, he said, which could signal a big pending fight over the 2007 budget. ``It's not a question of when, it's now,'' agreed Keith Ashdown at the nonprofit watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, calling big budget cuts inevitable. ``The only issue will be how is Congress going to react,'' Ashdown said, noting that lawmakers were traditionally reluctant to cut defense spending to help balance the budget, given the high number of jobs linked to big weapons programs. But Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican, recently said it was clear the ``glory days for defense budgets'' -- which have driven the Pentagon's annual budget well over $400 billion a year from $300 billion in fiscal year 2001 -- were ending. He said the outlook was further complicated by ``huge bow waves'' of spending for weapons programs begun long ago and now reaching maturity, such as the Lockheed Martin Corp. F/A-22 fighter jet and the V-22 tiltrotor aircraft, built by Boeing and Textron Inc.'s Bell Helicopter. Lawrence Korb, assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration, last week urged Congress to trim waste from the Pentagon budget in an editorial in the Baltimore Sun. He said about $50 billion to $60 billion could be saved from the president's proposed defense budget for fiscal 2006, by cutting weapons such as the F/A-22 that were designed to achieve military superiority over the Soviet Union and ``have no real value in today's national security environment.'' More savings could come from slowing down work on a national missile shield, eliminating unnecessary nuclear weapons, cutting Air Force and Navy forces; and streamlining the Pentagon's vast bureaucracy, he said. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- fema Memo: FEMA had problems before Katrina 10/17/2005 Associated Press http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/executive/2005-10-17-fema-memos_x.htm WASHINGTON (AP) — FEMA struggled to locate food, ice, water and even body bags in the days following Hurricane Katrina, a frantic effort punctuated by bureaucratic chaos, infighting and concerns about media coverage, according to memos obtained Monday by The Associated Press. "Biggest issue: resources are far exceeded by requirements," wrote William Carwile, the top Federal Emergency Management Agency official in Mississippi in a Sept. 3 e-mail to a state official. "Getting less than 25% of what we have been requesting from HQ daily." The memos underscore how FEMA was overwhelmed and underprepared for Katrina. The e-mails — 25 pages in all — represent a partial response to a request for documents by a House panel investigating the government's slow response to the storm. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is to appear in front of the House panel at a Wednesday hearing. FEMA is an arm of the Homeland Security Department. Five days after the storm hit on Aug. 29, Michael Brown, then FEMA director, e-mailed an aide saying there had been "no action from us" to evacuate storm victims using planes that airlines had made available. "This is flat wrong. We have been flying planes all afternoon and evening," FEMA deputy operations director Michael Lowder e-mailed in reply less than 30 minutes later. A day earlier, a FEMA official in Mississippi received an e-mail asking for Brown's satellite phone number so a senior Pentagon official on the Gulf Coast could call him. "Not here in MS (Mississippi). Is in LA (Louisiana) as far as I know," Carwile e-mailed back, seemingly uncertain on the whereabouts of the government's point man for responding to the disaster. Carwile recently retired from FEMA. Battling their own difficulties, FEMA officials were less than complimentary of Louisiana officials. "This one really has me worried," Brown confided in an Aug. 27 e-mail, as the storm bore down on the Gulf Coast. "I wish a certain governor was from Louisiana ... and his emergency manager," Brown e-mailed Craig Fugate, emergency manager in Florida, where Jeb Bush is governor. A few hours later, Patrick Rhode, FEMA's acting deputy director, e-mailed Brown, "I'm hoping they get serious about evacuating New Orleans." Florida pitched in with supplies, according to a Sept. 1 e-mail that showed just how badly FEMA needed them two days after the storm inflicted widespread damage across several states and led to flooding in New Orleans. "Food is also critical. Need MRE (ready to eat meals) and/or heater meals if you have any. Water, ice, food in eastern counties should be your priority. .... "Also know FL is providing law enforcement. Need all you can send. Public safety major concern (looting etc.) Have used Dixie Co. body bags (250) got more?" Carwile e-mailed Fugate. Responding, FEMA spokeswoman Natalie Rule said the agency had supplies positioned throughout the Southeast before the storm hit. "No single e-mail is going to give a clear or accurate picture of the largest federal response mobilization in history," Rule said. In an interview Monday, Brown said the memos "in general, will show that this was a disaster of catastrophic proportions where communications were difficult at best, and communications were non-existent at other times." "It shows at a minimum, for a disaster like that, you don't always have the best information," said Brown, who announced his resignation under fire Sept. 12 and left the agency last week. In his Aug. 27 e-mail to Fugate, Brown appeared to recognize the disaster's potential, noting: "Look at this scenario compared to the ... planning we did for New Orleans, and well, you get the picture." He was referring to a 2004 FEMA exercise known as Hurricane Pam, a fictional Category 3 storm that planners said would have devastated New Orleans. Katrina was a Category 4 storm. As Katrina approached, FEMA officials bristled at pressure from the White House to activate a group of strategy advisers as outlined in the National Response Plan that was issued by Homeland Security in January. "This is the job of long-term recovery ... in the NRP and FEMA is the lead," wrote FEMA deputy chief of staff Brooks Altshuler in an Aug. 28 e-mail to Rhode, which was forwarded to Brown. "Let them play their raindeer (sic) games as they are not turning around and tasking us with their stupid questions," Altshuler wrote. "None of them have a clue about emergency management or economic impacts for that matter." Brown said Monday that FEMA officials were concerned the strategy advisers — otherwise known as the interagency incident management group — would be another layer of bureaucracy to cut through. "We didn't want to deal with it at that point," Brown said. "The last thing I needed was people tracking down minutiae — 'Was X at Y?' — when we were dealing with much larger issues," he said. At one point, however, Brown dispatched Carwile to help an employee for an Oklahoma-based food service company find the employee's elderly mother. Brown is from Oklahoma. At another, Brown worked on a staffing organization chart. The e-mails also show how Brown and his top deputies worried about the media's portrayal of the federal response. "I know that the media will be out in full force, on the ground, in boats, and in the air, but so will we," Lowder wrote Brown shortly before midnight on Aug. 29. Two days later, Rhode gave his boss a boost after a news conference with reporters. "You did a hell of a job on the press conf (sic) this evening!" Rhode wrote in the Sept. 1 e-mail to Brown. -------- POLITICS -------- propaganda wars Ever Loyal to Her Masters in Military Intelligence Judith Miller, the Fourth Estate and the Warfare State By NORMAN SOLOMON, October 17, 2005 CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/solomon10172005.html More than any other New York Times reporter, Judith Miller took the lead with stories claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Now, a few years later, she's facing heightened scrutiny in the aftermath of a pair of articles that appeared in the Times on Sunday -- a lengthy investigative piece about Miller plus her own first-person account of how she got entangled in the case of the Bush administration's "outing" of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. It now seems that Miller functioned with more accountability to U.S. military intelligence officials than to New York Times editors. Most of the way through her article, Miller slipped in this sentence: "During the Iraq war, the Pentagon had given me clearance to see secret information as part of my assignment 'embedded' with a special military unit hunting for unconventional weapons." And, according to the same article, she ultimately told the grand jury that during a July 8, 2003, meeting with the vice president's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, "I might have expressed frustration to Mr. Libby that I was not permitted to discuss with editors some of the more sensitive information about Iraq." Let's replay that one again in slow motion. Judith Miller is a reporter for the New York Times. After the invasion, on assignment to cover a U.S. military unit as it searches for WMDs in Iraq, she's given "clearance" by the Pentagon "to see secret information" -- which she "was not permitted to discuss" with Times editors. There's nothing wrong with this picture if Judith Miller is an intelligence operative for the U.S. government. But if she's supposed to be a journalist, this is a preposterous situation -- and the fact that the New York Times has tolerated it tells us a lot about that newspaper. Notably, the front-page story about Miller in the Times on Sunday bypassed Miller's "clearance" status and merely reported: "In the spring of 2003, Ms. Miller returned from covering the war in Iraq, where she had been embedded with an American military team searching unsuccessfully for evidence of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons." In effect, during the propaganda buildup for the invasion of Iraq, while Miller was the paper's lead reporter on weapons of mass destruction, the New York Times news department served as a key asset of the warfare state. "WMD -- I got it totally wrong," the Times quoted Miller as saying in a Friday interview. "The analysts, the experts and the journalists who covered them -- we were all wrong. If your sources are wrong, you are wrong." But analysts, experts and journalists were not "all wrong." Some very experienced weapons inspectors -- including Mohamed ElBaradei, Hans Blix and Scott Ritter -- challenged key assertions from the White House. Well before the invasion, many other analysts also disputed various aspects of the U.S. government's claims about WMDs in Iraq. (For examples, see archived news releases put out by my colleagues at the Institute for Public Accuracy in 2002 and early 2003.) Meanwhile journalists at some British newspapers, including the Independent and the Guardian, raised tough questions that were virtually ignored by mainstream U.S. reporters in the Washington press corps. Reporters select sources -- and the unnamed ones that Miller chose to rely on, like the Pentagon's pet Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, were predictably eager to spin tales about WMDs in order to fuel momentum for an invasion. Yet the official line at the New York Times has been that its news department was fooled with the rest of the media best. On May 26, 2004 -- more than a year after the invasion of Iraq -- the Times published a belated semi-mea-culpa article by two top editors, including executive editor Bill Keller. The piece contended that the Times, along with policy makers in Washington, were victims rather than perpetrators: "Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations -- in particular, this one." But the Times did not "fall for misinformation" as much as jump for it. The newspaper eagerly helped the administration portray deceptions as facts. The carnage set loose by those deceptions is continuing every day. But the Times' extensive Sunday coverage of its own machinations, with Judith Miller at the center of the intrigue, had nothing to say about the human consequences in Iraq. In elite medialand, the careers of journalists at the New York Times loom large. In contrast, the lives of American soldiers -- and especially the lives of Iraqis -- are more like abstractions while the breathless accounts of press palace intrigues unfold. The apex of the Times hierarchy has provided no indication of personal remorse or institutional accountability. And the next time agenda-setting for U.S. military action -- against Iran or Syria or wherever -- shifts into high gear, it's very unlikely that the New York Times or other top-tier U.S. media outlets will present major roadblocks. On June 14, 2003, shortly before he was promoted to the job of executive editor at the New York Times, the newspaper published an essay by Bill Keller that explained why the U.S. government should strive to improve the quality of its intelligence. "The truth is that the information-gathering machine designed to guide our leaders in matters of war and peace shows signs of being corrupted," he wrote. "To my mind, this is a worrisome problem, but not because it invalidates the war we won. It is a problem because it weakens us for the wars we still face." Norman Solomon is the author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. ---- Last Gasp Before the Indictments? Miller's Confession By MIKE WHITNEY, October 17, 2005 CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney10172005.html If you plan to read Judy Miller's long and circuitous apology in the New York Times Sunday edition, bring your hip-waders. The obfuscating manure is knee-deep and bound to stymie even the most curious reader. Miller's a slippery customer, but a picture is slowly developing of someone who was deeply involved in White House maneuverings to discredit Joseph Wilson. It's clear now that Dick Cheney's right-hand man, Scooter Libby provided Miller with the name of ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame. Plame's name appears at least twice in the notebook Miller used when she interviewed Libby although she pretends that she cannot remember whether or not he furnished the name. It's also clear that Libby tried to coerce Miller into silence by dispatching his lawyer, Joseph Tate, to tell Miller that she "was free to testify" but that Libby "had not told Ms. Miller the name or undercover status of Mr. Wilson's wife." In other words, Libby lied to the Grand Jury and was signaling to Miller to shut up. If Miller told the truth she knew that Libby would go to jail and the administration would be exposed as plotting to disgrace Joseph Wilson. Fortunately, Miller got tired of her role as 1st amendment martyr and decided to testify. That prompted Libby to send her a frantic letter which stated that "the public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me." Libby was informing Miller as clearly as possible that she was the key figure in the investigation and advising her not to spill the beans. Miller had a problem though, she had no way of knowing what the other reporters had said to the Grand Jury and she also had to weigh the possibilities of being indicted on perjury or obstruction charges. So she did what most people would do in her situation; she tip-toed through the questioning "denying and forgetting" as much as possible. It's beginning to look like Miller is the pivotal figure in investigation and her role could be the undoing of the Bush regime. In one telling comment, Millers notes that (2 days before Robert Novak's article appeared in the Washington Post exposing CIA agent Valerie Plame) "I MIGHT HAVE CALLED OTHERS ABOUT MR WILSON'S WIFE". Really? Two days before Novak's earth-shaking article Miller was giving out Plame's name?!? This suggests that Miller may have been the ONLY reporter who got Plame's name from Libby and then spread it around to everyone else. No wonder Libby's so worried. That puts Miller at the very center of the Bush administration's biggest nightmare. Miller already admitted that Libby had told her that Plame "worked at Winpac. Winpac stood for Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control, the name of a unit within the CIA that, among other things, analyses the spread of unconventional weapons." (NY Times) That's an odd thing to confide in a reporter if it's not intended to start a "leak". Remember, Miller never even wrote a story about anything she gathered from these private interviews with Libby. So, what was her role? Were they just friends having a casual conversation or was she a mule for the information that the White House wanted to disseminate about Wilson? Libby also asked Miller to have the Times refer to him as a "former Hill staffer" rather than "a senior administration official" in stories written about Wilson. He obviously didn't want it to seem like the administration was carrying out a personal vendetta against Wilson. No problem. The administration makes a request and the New York Times carries it out forthwith. One hand washes the other. The question remains, though, why the cover-up? Why would Libby care what the papers call him if, as he claims, he wasn't doing anything wrong? The larger question is, however, where did Libby get Valerie Plame's name? The only person who would have had access to classified CIA information like that would have been his boss, Dick Cheney. Ah-ha! Cheney presided over a secret group of administration hawks known as the White House Iraq Group (WHIG). Their mission was to promote the danger of Saddam's WMD and discredit those who tried to mitigate the danger. The biggest part of their strategy was to exaggerate the threat of Saddam's imaginary nuclear weapons program. The administration knew through their own polling data that the American people would support a preemptive war if it appeared as though Saddam had nuclear weapons. So, it was incumbent on them to make the case. Wilson's op-ed piece in the New York Times, challenged the administration's conclusions about Niger yellow-cake uranium, and undermined the claims about Saddam's nuclear capacity. So, Wilson had to be destroyed. Miller, who had served as the conduit for most of the administration's phony stories about biological weapons sites, mobile-weapons labs, and aluminum tubes for nukes; was the logical choice to start the smear campaign against Wilson. Her role was to spread the "classified information" to her sources in the media who would, in turn, discredit Wilson. Libby has done his best to protect Cheney from being implicated, saying that the VP didn't know anything about Wilson, but the claim is absurd. As Jason Leopold notes in Raw Story, "Cheney was present at several of the WHIG's meetings. They say Cheney personally discussed with individuals in attendance at least two interviews in May and June of 2003 Wilson gave to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof and Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, in which he claimed the administration "twisted" prewar intelligence and what the response from the administration should be." ("Vice President's Role in outing of CIA agent under Examination", Jason Leopold) Leopold's article also points out the cozy relationship between the Miller and the members of WHIG prior to the Iraq war. After Miller had written her damning article about aluminum tubes in Iraq that could be used as centrifuges in nuclear weapons (a story that was later discredited); Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and Rice swung into high-gear, flooding the Sunday talk-shows and citing the story as proof that Saddam's nukes would ultimately engulf America in a "mushroom cloud". The media's disinformation-campaign must have been coordinated with Miller and key members of the Bush administration. The plan worked flawlessly. Clearly, both Miller and NY Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger were intimately involved in manufacturing the fraudulent evidence that dragged the nation to war. Neither has ever expressed any regret over the role they played. Libby's Caveat Ironically, Libby's cryptic comments to Miller may turn out to be the best summary of the ongoing investigation. He said, "Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them." Yes, and if Libby goes down, so will Cheney, Rove, Card, Rice, and perhaps even Bush, because "their roots connect them". Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy University of Colorado Wins 2005 Solar Decathlon WASHINGTON, DC, October 17, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2005/2005-10-17-09.asp#anchor5 U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman Friday announced that the University of Colorado took overall honors in the 2005 Solar Decathlon on the National Mall. Cornell University placed second, and California Polytechnic State University finished third. The teams transport their solar houses to the National Mall, where they form a solar village. The solar houses built by each team remained open to the public on the Mall all weekend. The University of Colorado (CU) residence is a single-chassis solar mobile home incorporating a patent-pending structural insulated panel system, called the BioSIP, which was invented by the CU Team specifically for their Solar Decathlon entry. Materials used in the winning home's construction and furnishings read like a health food menu and include agricultural products and by-products such as soy, corn, coconut, wheat, canola oil, citrus oils, sugar and even chocolate. Using "low to no petroleum" resources, the team said, means less energy was used in manufacturing the BioS(h)IP's materials and thus, the home itself. This feature combined with renewable energy systems for powering the residence enables the CU home to have an embodied energy dramatically lower than most U.S. homes. Like a ship that fills its sails with renewable wind energy for travel, the BioSIP filled its tank with renewable biodiesel fuel during its trip between Boulder, Colorado and Washington, DC. The commitment to use fuel from waste oils and plants is based on the CU Team's low-to-no petroleum pledge for the Solar Decathlon and beyond. “We should all be proud of what these students have accomplished,” Bodman said. “Through their ingenuity, their knowledge of design and engineering, and an incredible amount of determination and hard work, they have demonstrated that we can have it all - beautiful homes, comfortable homes, and homes that produce all the power they need.” Using only energy from the sun, the teams generate enough electricity to run a modern household. The University of Colorado ended up with 853 points of a possible 1,100. Cornell University earned 826 points, and California Polytechnic State University finished with 809 points. The 2005 Solar Decathlon pitted 18 collegiate teams from the U.S., Puerto Rico, Canada and Spain in a competition to design, build and operate the most attractive and energy-efficient solar powered home. Students competed in 10 areas, ranging from architecture, livability and comfort to how well the homes provide energy for space heating and cooling, hot water, lighting, and appliances. Each house also had to produce enough additional power for an electric car. The primary sponsor of the Solar Decathlon is the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Private sector sponsors include the American Institute of Architects, the National Association of Home Builders, BP Solar, the Do It Yourself Network, and Sprint Nextel. ---- Environmental Group Greenpeace Says Wind Could Help Power China's Guangdong Province October 17, 2005 — By Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=9036 HONG KONG — The environmental group Greenpeace on Monday urged China to use more wind power to cut down on severe pollution and to meet a surging demand for power in Guangdong -- one of the nation's most industrialized provinces. "Guangdong has enormous wind resources," Robin Oakley, climate and energy campaign manager for Greenpeace, said as he released the results of a new study called "Wind Guangdong." Greenpeace focused on Guangdong because the southern province is one of the biggest emitters of carbon dioxide, which scientists believe builds up in the atmosphere and traps heat like a greenhouse. Factories in Guangdong have experienced power shortages in recent years. Many have resorted to using their own backup power plants that burn low-grade fuel that causes heavy pollution. Much of the smog drifts across the border to Hong Kong, which is often blanketed by a thick haze. About 83 percent of China is powered by coal and less than 1 percent by wind, said Graham White of Garrad Hassan and Partners Ltd., an energy consultancy that did the research for Greenpeace. Wind power in Guangdong could produce 20,000 megawatts of energy, or 17 percent of the province's current demand, the study said. About 10,000 turbines, or windmills, would be needed to produce this much energy, Oakley said. -------- ACTIVISTS Iraqi Feminist Yanar Mohammed on the Iraq Constitution Vote Monday, October 17th, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/17/1422236 In Iraq, early election results suggest that voters have approved a new US-backed constitution. Millions of ballots are still being counted two days after the referendum which was a simple "Yes" or "No" on whether to accept the document. [includes rush transcript] Preliminary counts indicate the vote split as expected along largely ethnic lines. Most Kurds and Shia Muslims are almost certain to have backed the constitution. The key issue is whether the minority Sunnis have been able to block it. Many Sunnis fear it will create richer mini-states for the Kurds and Shias and leave the Sunni areas in the centre and west impoverished. Overall, turnout was running at over 60 percent and could go higher, according to the Electoral Commission. Early election results indicated a strong "Yes" vote in the Shiite provinces of the south and massive rejection in the Sunni areas of the north and west. Despite high turnout in some Sunni Arab areas, partial counts suggested the charter's opponents did not muster enough "No" votes to veto it. According to the referendum rules, a two-thirds "No" vote in three of Iraq's 18 provinces would block the constitution from passing. This is Iraq's government spokesman, Laith Kubba. - Laith Kubba, Iraqi government spokesperson If the constitution passes, Iraqis will vote again in December for a new, four-year parliament. Should it fail, the country's politicians would have to go back to the drawing-board. In Washington, President Bush congratulated Iraqis on the referendum. - President Bush: "The vote today in Iraq stands in stark contrast to the attitudes and philosophy and strategy of al Qaeda and its terrorist friends and killers. We believe, and the Iraqis believe, the best way forward is through the democratic process. Al Qaeda wants to use their violent ways to stop the march of democracy because democracy is the exact opposite of what they believe is right. We're making progress toward peace. We're making progress toward an ally that will join us in the war on terror, that will prevent al Qaeda from establishing safe haven in Iraq, and a country that will serve as an example for others who aspire to live in freedom." Saturday's vote was largely peaceful as a huge security clampdown prevented all but a handful of strikes, although five U.S. soldiers and a Marine were killed in western Iraq. On Sunday, US helicopters and warplanes bombed two villages near Ramadi in western Iraq. The US military said 70 people were killed in the attacks, all of whom were militants, but eyewitnesses are quoted saying that many were civilians. We are joined by Iraqi feminist, Yanar Mohammed. She is Director of the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq, a group that works to stop atrocities against Iraqi women and defend their rights. She also serves as the Editor in Chief of the newspaper Al-Mousawat which stands for "Equality." She joins us from a studio in Toronto. - Yanar Mohammed, director of the Organization of Women/s Freedom in Iraq, a group that works to stop atrocities against Iraqi women and defend their rights. She also serves as the Editor in Chief of the newspaper Al-Mousawat which stands for "Equality." RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: This is Iraq's government spokesperson, Laith Kubba. LAITH KUBBA: We know well that either way, if it's a yes or a no, it's going to be a tough outcome that we need to handle. We know that there is a level of polarization, and Iraq as one big family, we know if part of the family is not happy, you cannot live in the same house. AMY GOODMAN: If the constitution passes, Iraqis will vote again in December for a new four-year parliament. Should it fail, Iraq's politicians will have to go back to the drawing board. In Washington, President Bush congratulated Iraqis on the referendum. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The vote today in Iraq stands in stark contrast to the attitudes and philosophy and strategy of al Qaeda and its terrorist friends and killers. We believe and the Iraqis believe the best way forward is through the democratic process. Al Qaeda wants to use their violent ways to stop the march of democracy, because democracy is the exact opposite of what they believe is right. We're making progress toward peace. We're making progress toward an ally that will join us in the war on terror, that will prevent al Qaeda from establishing safe haven in Iraq, and a country that will serve as an example for others who aspire to live in freedom. AMY GOODMAN: Saturday's vote was largely peaceful as a huge security clamp-down prevented all but a handful of strikes, although five U.S. soldiers and a marine were killed in western Iraq. On Sunday U.S. helicopters and warplanes bombed two villages near Ramadi in western Iraq. The U.S. military said 70 people were killed in the attacks, all of whom were militants, but eyewitnesses are quoted, saying many were civilians. We're joined now by Iraqi feminist, Yanar Mohammed, Director of the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq, a group that works to stop atrocities against Iraqi women and defend their rights. She also serves as Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper Al-Mousawat, which means equality. She joins us from Toronto. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Yanar. YANAR MOHAMMED: Hi, Amy. How are you? AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Can you talk about the vote, the constitution and your response to what look like it has passed? YANAR MOHAMMED: You know, about the vote, Amy, there are a few people who said yes, against your comments where you said the Shiites were more for a yes vote, and the Kurds are also for a yes vote, because in what they call the Shiite cities, half of the voters of the last elections did not go to this referendum, and this is a very blunt no to this referendum, in the time that it was not counted as votes against the referendum. And also, in the north, in many Kurdish friends that I have, I hear that everybody is not satisfied with this constitution that will force Islamic Sharia on them. So most of the people are against this constitution, but those who had boycotted, those voices will not count. So, it will not be known. Nobody is satisfied with a referendum that is establishing a constitution of division and oppression of women. All of the women's groups are against this constitution, but unfortunately, a big majority is voting yes, because they are under the impression that a vote yes will lead to more secure times in Iraq, and it's not just something that they are assuming, but they were told this over and over again by the puppet government that has been selected by the Americans and also by the occupying forces, that a vote yes is a yes for democracy. It is yes for security, and it’s yes for better times to come. So, most of those who are putting the ballot as yes, they are under the – they are alluded into a vote that they think will bring some security into the country, but nobody, absolutely nobody, is satisfied with a constitution of dividing Iraqi people upon ethnic lines, upon religious lines and also a constitution of turning us women into second-rate citizens. And you know what, everybody is terrorized because the civil war has already started, and there is no mention in it in Condoleezza Rice's very optimistic speech. She says that democracy is being achieved, while in Iraq, all we witness is that we have no electricity, we have no security, the civil war has started, and a hideous way of democracy has been imposed on us, a democracy that has put Mullahs, ethnic bigot rulers, I mean, ethnic heads and tribal heads as representatives of Iraqi people. We are outraged by a constitution that gives legality to these tribal and ethnic heads and religious heads, and has turned Iraq into an Islamic country. Everybody is outraged, but if we reached the vote yes, it's only because people are under the impression that the vote yes will lead us to more secure times. This is the publicity that they have put all over the media, and women have already been turned into second rate citizens by this constitution. I think next time I’m in Iraq, I'll have to cover up. I will be forced to veil. I will be forced to wear black, and there is no other way of looking at it. AMY GOODMAN: Yanar Mohammed. YANAR MOHAMMED: The Americans impose democracy. AMY GOODMAN: How does the constitution specifically address women? YANAR MOHAMMED: It has made it very clear under the first chapter of the main principles that the Sharia will be the main source, actually, the exact word is the base source of legislation, and any article that contradicts with Islamic Sharia cannot be passed under this constitution. So, we are speaking here about a whole family law that will be based on Sharia, in the time that our previous family law was more progressive. It had a big number of amendments to it. It was one of the best in the Middle East, and it gave women some kind of independence, while under this new family law that will be totally based on Islamic Sharia, women's rights in marriage, in divorce, in custody and even in access to work and education will be in the hands of the males. In other words, we are not allowed to independence. We are not allowed to decisions in our lives, and we not speaking here about only appearances of wearing veil or not veil, but we are speaking about women having choices in their lives. We have lost those, and it is by constitution now. There is no other way to it, because no article that contradicts with Islamic Sharia will be allowed in the family law, and there isn't much elaboration about following the international conventions of ending the discrimination against women to prioritize them over religion. It says very clearly the priority is that the laws will not contradict with Islamic Sharia. So, there you go, all of the women are second-rate citizens in Iraq. There's another point, Amy. AMY GOODMAN: Yanar -- YANAR MOHAMMED: I would like to elaborate on it. AMY GOODMAN: Go ahead. YANAR MOHAMMED: Another point about dividing Iraqi people upon their ethnic ideas and religious ideas, the bigger your minority is, your ethnic minority, the more rights you have. The bigger your religious minority, the more rights you have. So, we are speaking about Iraq being divided into bits and pieces, where in the south the Shiites will be prioritized to any other religion, and in the north, the Kurds will have priority to Arabs and to Turkmens. We are speaking about a very serious declaration of a civil war. This is the constitution that they are forcing Iraqi people to vote yes for. And how did they do that? Because they are telling us this is the only way of achieving security in Iraq. This is George Bush's hideous democracy in Iraq now, and they have forced us into it. AMY GOODMAN: Yanar Mohammad, I want to thank you for being us with, Director of the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq, a group that works to defend women there, to defend their rights. She was speaking to us from Toronto, who lives much of the time in Baghdad, Iraq.