NucNews - October 21, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety Deadline to empty Hanford tanks shaky Last updated Friday, October 21st, 2005 By Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald staff writer http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/7112879p-7020102c.html Cost overruns and delays in retrieving radioactive waste from Hanford's underground tanks early in the project could signal that the Department of Energy may not be able to meet a legal deadline to get all its leak-prone tanks emptied by 2018, according to an audit by the Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General. The deadline will be missed for retrieving radioactive waste from the first group of Hanford tanks scheduled to be emptied and the cost has more than doubled, the audit found. The waste is left from more than 40 years of plutonium production for the nation's nuclear weapons program. Although DOE continues to say it's too soon to renegotiate legal deadlines for emptying the 16 tanks in the group called C Tank Farm, the audit found the deadline would be missed by six months. It's projecting that DOE contractor CH2M Hill Hanford Group will not complete work on the 16 tanks, which have a combined capacity of 6.58 million gallons of radioactive waste, until March 2007. The legal deadline set under the Tri-Party Agreement is the end of September 2006. CH2M Hill estimated in 2003 that it could complete the removal of that waste for $90 million, according to the audit. But now DOE estimates the costs have increased to $215 million, the audit said. "In our judgment, the department was overly optimistic about its ability to retrieve tank waste and it had not based its approach on sound retrieval experience and proven retrieval technologies," said Inspector General Gregory Friedman in a memo. At the time DOE agreed to a schedule for the project, Hanford workers had retrieved only limited amounts of tank waste and did not fully consider potential difficulties, the audit said. Workers have struggled with equipment malfunctions and characterizing tank waste, the audit said. In addition, to better protect workers, scuba-style supplied air respirators now are being used in older tank farms where waste from 149 single-shell tanks is being emptied into 28 newer double-shell tanks to await treatment and then disposal. Together the tanks hold 53 million gallons of waste. The underground tanks vent to the air, and state and federal studies concluded too little was known about the chemical vapors that could be breathed by workers to ensure they were safe. Switching to supplied air caused a 42 percent drop in productivity, according to DOE. The audit said it also increased costs by about 30 percent. Auditors believed DOE's plan was to have waste retrieval activities conducted around the clock to meet the deadline. But that's not an option that has been discussed, at least publicly, for the demanding and technical work in recent years. Rather than hiring tank farm workers to operate retrieval equipment more hours as the audit discussed, CH2M Hill laid off workers this fall. DOE told state of Washington officials earlier this month that the September 2006 deadline for the C Tank Farm was in jeopardy. But DOE officials also said they planned to work with CH2M Hill to continue to get as much waste emptied as possible and that Hanford workers could come close to meeting the deadline. They based their optimism on the speed with which the second C tank was emptied. Workers spent 270 days emptying the first tank, but had the second tank completed in 43 days. Retrieval of waste from the third tank has yet to begin. However, too much time is being spent preparing the tanks to be emptied, and that transition period needs to be significantly shortened, DOE officials said after discussing the legal deadline with the state. The audit recommended that new legal deadlines be set based on more accurate estimates of the time needed to empty the C tanks. It's too soon for that, responded James Rispoli, DOE's assistant secretary for environmental management, in a memo to George Collard, assistant inspector general for audit operations. As Hanford workers continue to empty tanks, DOE will have a better idea of whether it can meet the deadline for the C Tank Farm or how much additional time retrieval might take, Rispoli said in the memo. Preparations are under way to empty the third C tank. -------- australia Public offered waste dump safety guarantee October 21, 2005. 7:16am (AEST) Australian Broadcasting http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1487193.htm The chief executive officer of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency says Northern Territorians have nothing to fear from a nuclear waste dump. Dr John Loy says once the Federal Government chooses one of three proposed sites, he will only grant a licence if it meets stringent security tests. He says he can guarantee that if approved, the dump would be safe. "I can't issue a licence unless I can be assured, and the process is very much a public one, and I think people will be able to see from the demonstrations the proponent will have to make and from the analysis and the assessment that we do that the result will be something that will be safe," he said. -------- britain MOD refuses information on Trident replacement Last edited: 21-10-2005 Greenpeace http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?ucidparam=20051021155200 On September 13th 2005, in an interview with the Guardian newspaper, Defence Secretary John Reid, promised 'an open debate in the country, parliamentary party and parliament' on whether the UK should build a new nuclear weapons system to replace Trident. However, information is needed, in order to have a debate, or on which to base a decision. For instance, what is the government's opinion on the role of UK nuclear weapons in the post Cold War world? How does the development of new nuclear weapons square with the UK's international commitments to disarm? How would it affect the UK's attempts to prevent countries like Iraq developing their own nuclear weapons? And what is the likely financial cost to be? A more convincing argument is required, than the one given by John Reid in his Guardian article. He argues that we need new nuclear weapons in case some threat emerges somewhere, at some point, in the future. It's because of this need for information that Greenpeace earlier this year requested, under the Freedom of Information Act, that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) release copies of all studies undertaken on the issue of Trident replacement, including: * studies assessing potential and/or existing threats which may or may not be deterred by the various options for replacing Trident; * studies on the financial costs of the various options to replace or not replace Trident; * studies on the implications Trident's replacement or non-replacement would have on UK Foreign Policy, economic policy and military policy. * details of any contacts with US officials, UK defence companies and overseas defence companies regarding the replacement of Trident. * details of studies on diversification measures to protect workers' jobs in the event of the Trident renewal programme not going ahead. On September 26th, Greenpeace received a series of letters from the MoD stating that despite the "strong public interest" in the issue, and despite the fact they held part of the information requested, this information would not be made public. Greenpeace is not satisfied with this reply. How can an open and democratic discussion be held on the future of British nuclear weapons, if the information needed to make this discussion possible is withheld? What credible reason can there be for withholding this information, as it does not concern operational matters? Is this suppression of information happening because the UK government doesn't really want a debate, as it knows that with the Cold War over, it is difficult to justify a new British bomb as "there is today no direct military threat to the United Kingdom or Western Europe. Nor do we foresee the re-emergence of such a threat." (1998 - Labour's Strategic Defence Review). Is the real motivation behind government support for building a replacement for trident that the government doesn't want to upset its partnership with the US government, by exposing US failure to disarm their nuclear weapons, as well as plans to build more? These remain key questions and that's why Greenpeace will be appealing against the MoD's decision not to release these documents and urges you to write to your MPs, asking them to take up the issue with the government. ---- Chief scientist backs nuclear power revival David Adam, environment correspondent Friday October 21, 2005 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1597141,00.html The government's chief scientific adviser has sent his clearest signal that Britain will need to revive its nuclear power industry in the face of a looming energy crisis and the threat of global warming. In an interview with the Guardian, Sir David King said there were economic as well as environmental reasons for a new generation of reactors. He said nuclear power had "the safest record of all the power industries in the world". Professor King, who has previously said more nuclear power stations "may be necessary" to meet carbon dioxide emission targets, said the decline of North Sea oil and gas could tip the balance. "We need indigenous energy sources so we don't rely on imported gas from Russia. We're the last in the pipeline across Europe, so a second requirement is that we have a secure energy supply. Indigenous supplies include all renewables and nuclear." Relying on renewable sources including wind, solar and wave power to replace lost capacity when existing nuclear power stations close would be a "remarkably tough challenge," he said. "At the moment 24% of energy on the grid comes from nuclear power; by 2020 that will be down to 4%. That gap of 20% is going to be very difficult to cover over the period 2010 to 2020 without new nuclear build." More power stations burning coal and gas would give Britain little chance of meeting ambitious targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to global warming. Generating electricity using the heat of nuclear reactors to turn water into steam to drive turbines does not produce carbon dioxide directly, though building and dismantling the plants and mining uranium fuel all do. Prof King, one of Tony Blair's most trusted advisers, said the public debate on nuclear power needed to focus on the environmental benefits. "It's important we do take the public with us on the environmental debate. That is why I'm trying to sell it - it's precisely because of the emissions." He added that the possible introduction of carbon taxes would make nuclear power a cheaper option than coal. "People are concerned about nuclear energy in terms of its expense, but if we had just €23 [£15.50p] per tonne on carbon dioxide then you already switch the economic argument in favour of nuclear." His remarks come in the build-up to international talks in Montreal on how to address the threat of climate change when the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. He denied suggestions - sparked by comments from Mr Blair that he was changing his mind on whether international treaties were the best way to tackle global warming - that Britain was moving closer to the stance of the US, which has refused to back Kyoto-style emission reductions. "The British government's position is that we believe emissions trading is absolutely vital. We believe that capping processes are vital and we believe that declared objectives for 2010, 2020 etc are necessary," said Prof King. He criticised a partnership between the US, Australia and several Asian countries that relies on developing new technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. -------- canada Deal With OPA Cements $4.25 Billion Bruce A Investment 10/21/2005 SOURCE: The Society Of Energy Professionals http://www.electricnet.com/content/news/article.asp?docid=%7B088C189E-342E-45A5-99C8-9D52819DB4A0%7D&VNETCOOKIE=NO Bruce Power will invest $4.25 billion in the refurbishment of the Bruce A units, extending their lives to as late as 2035. "I'm very pleased to be here today to tell you that we're at the end of a very long road to get to a trans- action that actually transforms Bruce Power," said CEO Duncan Hawthorne, speaking at a media con- ference earlier today in the Bruce Power Information Centre. "We are transformed from an organization facing the spectre of shutting down units to one that will instead return our two remaining laid-up reac- tors to service by the end of the decade." Society Vice President Bill Jones added the Society's endorsement to the deal. "It's a great day for Bruce Power, and a great day for the nuclear industry." Society President Andrew Müller applauded the agreement as a clear signal that nuclear energy will play a vital role in Ontario's energy mix for years to come. "This deal demonstrates the support of the provincial government for the nuclear power industry in Ontario, and the crucial role Bruce Power plays," he said. "It's very good news for our members and their careers and for the Bruce community." As well, the deal includes the refurbishment of Bruce A Unit 3, with new steam generators and fuel channels, and the replacement of Unit 4's steam generators when these units reach the end of their cur- rent expected service lives. Work to restart Units 1 and 2 will begin immediately upon closing, with the first unit expected to be online in 2009. "We're a company that's here for the long term," said Hawthorne. "This contract not only delivers a very solid overall performance for this site for the long term, but also conditions us for future growth." The cement for the investment comes from a deal with the Ontario Power Authority that Bruce Power will get $63 for each megawatt-hour of power generated by Bruce A units, to commence on closure of the deal. While Bruce A's watts will be sold on the spot market, Bruce Power will return to the OPA earnings above the Hourly Ontario Electricity Price (HOEP), as determined by the Independent Electricity System Operator. When Bruce A watts are sold at below the HOEP, the OPA will top up payments to the $63 "reference price," with what is called "ratepayer support." The $63 "reference price" is protected against inflation. In a media release announcing the deal, recently-appointed Energy Minister Donna Cansfield said, "This agreement transfers much of the risk associated with the project to the private sector and away from hard working Ontarians, while ensuring fair prices and the capacity to meet Ontario's future ener- gy needs" At the conference, Huron-Bruce MPP Carol Mitchell said, "This announcement demon- strates the McGuinty government's long-term commitment to nuclear power." On top of the guaranteed prices, the OPA has also agreed to share the risks of cost overruns with the Bruce Power partnership: * If refurbishment costs are over the expected $4.25 billion by up to $618 million, the OPA will share responsibility equally * Bruce Power will be 75 per cent responsible for overruns above $618 million, with the OPA picking up the rest * If refurbishment comes in at below cost, the OPA will share in the benefit: 50 per cent of any cost under-runs for the first $240 million below $4.25 billion, and 25 per cent on the next $150 million It is estimated that at its peak the refurbishment projects will provide in the neighbourhood of 1,500 construction jobs in the Bruce and other areas. The provincial government's commitment to Bruce Power also means thousands of good, well-paying jobs will remain in the Bruce area for many years, providing much-needed stability for Bruce families and the Bruce economy. The Bruce Power partnership will also undergo some restructuring, as Cameco has decided to sell its share of the "A" part of the Bruce plant, while still remaining a partner in the "B" side. Cameco will also not invest in the Bruce A refurbishment. TransCanada and BPC Generation Infrastructure Trust (an investment arm of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System) each take half the Cameco holdings. The end result will be two Bruce Power partnerships-Bruce Power Limited Partnership (BPLP), which holds Bruce B, and Bruce A Limited Partnership (BALP).The above details about the dealings between Bruce A and the OPA apply only to BALP. -------- europe Viewpoint: Finland's new reactor Friday, 21 October 2005 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4245298.stm Mikko Elo, an MP for Finland's Social Democrat Party, backed the country's decision in 2002 to build the first new nuclear reactor in Europe for more than a decade. He knows better than most what nuclear power entails. His constituency already has two reactors and it will also host the new one, to be completed in 2009. As the UK gears up for a debate on the future of its nuclear industry, Mr Elo tells the BBC News website why he thinks nuclear power is right for Finland. We need a lot of energy in Finland. We have a cold climate, long distances and an energy-intensive industry. We make good use of almost every form of energy production. Hydropower, coal, natural gas, wood, wind and turf all play a part. But if we are to help our economy as well as the environment, the answer has to be more nuclear power. At the moment, nuclear provides 28% of our electricity. Once the fifth reactor is up and running, that figure will rise to 34%. We simply could not honour our commitments to the Kyoto Protocol without it. Economic benefits The Kyoto Protocol is incredibly costly for Finland. We have cleaned up our factories and we use energy efficiently - but it is not enough. We couldn't meet the costs of Kyoto without the help of nuclear power, which is an extremely clean form of energy. It also brings significant economic benefits to our country. Unlike other energy providers, the nuclear industry does not require state subsidies, which means the public doesn't have to pay for it through taxes. It is also a very big employer. In my constituency, where we already have two reactors, there is very little opposition to nuclear power - and that is partly because of the economic benefits it brings. New nuclear power stations take a lot of people to build them and once complete, they employ about 300 or 400 people each. Of course, there are problems with nuclear power that need to be understood. Waste disposal is an issue, and there is also a risk of accidents and terrorism. Terror fears We have decided to dispose of all our own waste, although we will not accept waste from other countries. Our experts tell us Finnish rock is very good for nuclear waste disposal - and I trust our engineers. As far as I understand it, there is very little risk involved. I believe fear will only grow if the issue isn't discussed in public All our reactors are guarded very carefully, but we don't regard terrorism as such a big risk in Finland. I know it is a big fear in London, but it isn't the same in Finland. That is not to say there isn't public concern. Although 90% of people in my own constituency are in favour of nuclear power, the same does not apply nationally. In the nationwide public polls, the opposition still has the majority. I think the best way to deal with public opposition is to be very open about the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power. No alternative I noticed that in Britain, politicians didn't want to discuss nuclear power before the election, but I don't think that is a good thing. In Finland, before the elections in 1999, when nuclear power was already topical, it was a question that was put to all candidates. I believe fear will only grow if the issue isn't discussed in public. It is not good to go behind the public's back. And I truly believe that the more people understand nuclear power, the less they will oppose it. Looking further afield, I think nuclear power is set to become more and more prominent around the world. If you worry about climate change then there is no other economically or environmentally stable alternative to nuclear power. FINLAND'S ELECTRICITY SUPPLY 25.1% nuclear 16.9% hydro 18.2% coal 11.7% biofuels 11.7% natural gas 7.5% peat 5.6% imports 2.1% oil 1.2% waste fuels Source: Statistics Finland 2004 ---- German nuclear phase-out Mr Trittin: "Renewable energies are essential" Friday, 21 October 2005 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4357238.stm Outgoing German environment minister Jurgen Trittin played a key role in the country's decision to shut down all its nuclear reactors by 2020. Although the new Chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU party wanted to extend the closure deadline, outgoing Chancellor's Gerhard Schroeder's SPD party have retained the environment ministry in coalition negotiations and say they do not intend to review the policy. As Britain gears up for a debate on the future of its nuclear industry, Mr Trittin, a member of Germany's Green Party, explains to the BBC News website why he believes his country should consign atomic energy to the past. We want to follow a path towards a sustainable energy supply, for the protection of the global climate, the conservation of finite resources and for the sake of future generations. We want to make even greater energy savings, increase energy efficiency even further and expand the use of renewable energies. In Germany this is known as the 'Energiewende' - the transformation of our energy system. 'No wiser' Nuclear power is not needed to achieve this. Quite the contrary: technically speaking, this base-load relic of the past is standing in the way of flexible and intelligent electricity production. In contrast to Germany, Finland has commissioned Europe's first new reactor in a decade. MP Mikko Elo supports the decision. The safety risks associated with nuclear power have in no way decreased in recent years - in particular with regard to the threat of terrorism, they have in fact increased dramatically. And as far as the long-term management of radioactive wastes is concerned, we are fundamentally no wiser than we were 30 years ago. The use of nuclear power is and will remain a global risk, especially for future generations. Who can today presume to say, or even begin to imagine, what the world will be like in 24,000 years? This is the half-life period of plutonium-239, which is generated in huge volumes during nuclear fission. However, what we do know today is that 24,000 years ago Olkiluoto [where Finland is building a new reactor], for example, was buried under around 3,000m of ice. In contrast, renewable energies are essential to solving pressing issues for the future. With the further rapid expansion of wind and hydropower, solar power, the use of biomass and geothermal power - we can create an alternative to a nuclear and fossil fuel energy supply in a step-by-step process. Progress on renewables We have already made good progress. In 2004, 9.8% of electricity in Germany came from renewable sources. Ten years ago, the figure was not even half this. And this trend is set to continue. Our goal in Germany is to provide at least 20% of electricity from renewable energies in the year 2020. And by the middle of the century, we want to cover about 50% of our total energy consumption with renewable sources. The expansion of renewable energies is ecologically beneficial and economically viable. In Germany, a strong and rapidly growing sector has developed around renewables. Today, renewables contribute over 6% of the total energy consumption - a figure that will increase - while the 5.7% share of nuclear power lies below this and continues to decrease. Revenues totalled around 11.6 billion euros (£7.9bn) in 2004 - for both the setting up and the operation of installations. That is more than in the pharmaceutical industry, for example. This is creating jobs. There are already around 150,000 jobs in the renewables sector. New opportunities are opening up - not only for solar engineers and steel workers for the construction of wind power plants, but also indirectly in delivery companies, commercial agencies, advertising, planning offices, in the financial services sector and in research and development. And in contrast to jobs in the fossil fuels energy supply sector, jobs in the renewables sector have the great advantage of being based on innovation, supply security and ecological compatibility. Renewables energies create future-oriented jobs. Cleaner air Renewables protect the environment. The use of these energies enabled a saving of around 70 million tonnes of CO2 in Germany last year. This is much more than the Kyoto commitments of many countries. And they are also helping to keep the air in Germany clean. Less combustion of fossil fuels also means a reduction in the emission of air pollutants that contribute to acidification and eutrophication and that damage human health. Surveys show that both the increased use of renewable energies and the phase-out of nuclear power are supported by a broad majority of the population. All this shows that we are on the right track with the expansion of renewables. We will reach our Kyoto targets without having to become further entangled in the risks and burdens of nuclear power. We are convinced that Germany has chosen the right energy policy path. GERMANY'S ELECTRICITY GENERATION 48.9% - coal and lignite 27.5% - nuclear 10.2% - natural gas 4.5% hydro 4.1% - wind 1.6% - oil and diesel 3.2% - other (solar, biomass, waste) Source: Statistisches Bundesamt -------- india India, US committed to implementing landmark nuclear deal NEW DELHI (AFP) Oct 21, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051021153751.6a04lwul.html India and the United States said Friday they were determined to implement a bilateral nuclear deal that breaks precedent on decades of non-proliferation policy. Describing his talks with Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran as "good," US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said Washington would "stick" with the agreement signed on July 18 during a visit to Washington by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. "I assured my friend Shyam that we will stick to our agreement ... and fulfill the obligations under the agreement," Burns told reporters in New Delhi. Saran described the civilian nuclear cooperation issue as "complicated" but said the two sides should have an understanding on the agreement in place by the time President George W. Bush arrives on a visit to India early next year. Burns said Washington was not asking India to fulfill any other conditions than the ones already in the agreement. Under the terms of the accord, New Delhi has to separate civilian and military nuclear programs in exchange for advanced civilian nuclear technology. India would place its civilian nuclear reactors under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection while Washington would lobby the 44-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group to allow civilian nuclear sales to India. In return, Washington would give India access to technology normally reserved for nations that have signed the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). The deal also commits Washington to persuade countries constituting the 44 member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to lift restrictions on India in civilian nuclear technology trade. Burns conceded that some members of the NSG in a meeting in Washington on Wednesday had questions about lifting the embargo on civilian nuclear technology trade with India. "I don't expect this to be an impediment," in implementation of the deal, he added. The group normally restricts cooperation with countries, like India, that are not NPT members. India carried out nuclear weapon tests in May 1998, which were matched by rival Pakistan, leading to economic sanctions by the United States on both countries which were waived in 2001 in return for support in the "war on terrorism". Saran said India had "already delivered" on some of its responsibilities under the agreement. These included tightening export controls and "working with the United States in terms of new global standards for control of reprocessing and enrichment technologies being exported to third countries," he said. "So we are already conforming to and becoming a partner in a global non-proliferation regime and we see ourselves, both the United States and India, as partners in that effort." The ruling Congress party-led government last month was accused by opposition parties of caving in to US pressure in supporting an IAEA resolution that opens the door to reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for violating international nuclear safeguards. The move came after US legislators warned that the nuclear deal, which must be approved by the US Congress, could be jeopardized if India refused to back firm action against Iran, which has signed the NPT and with which New Delhi has valuable energy ties. Burns said the vote was "a very important sign that India is a responsible nuclear power." He also repeated that the United States would like to see Iran return to talks with European countries on its nuclear program. "Since the Indian government's very decisive and clear vote in the IAEA, that issue has disappeared in the US Congress and we now find substantial support in Congress for the agreement reached in July," he said. Burns said he was confident of securing US Congressional approval ahead of Bush's visit. -------- japan Chugoku Electric wins suit over planned nuclear power plant Friday, October 21, 2005 at 05:21 JST Kyodo News http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=1&id=352730 HIROSHIMA — The Hiroshima High Court on Thursday dismissed an attempt by four local residents to block Chugoku Electric Power Co's plans to build a nuclear power plant in the town of Kaminoseki, Yamaguchi Prefecture. The high court denied the residents' right to firewood at the site, which is considered an important part of the construction area, overruling a March 2003 district court ruling that recognized the right and banned Chugoku Electric from altering the site. ---- Japan set for nuke fuel storage facility MUTSU, Japan, Oct. 21, 2005 (UPI) http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051021-105402-3853r Shingo Mimura, governor of Japan's Aomori prefecture, officially announced that Aomori would allow facilities to be built for the temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel. The containment units are to be built in Mutsu city. Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper reported that the decision follows the Aomori prefectural government and the Mutsu city government signing an accord with Tokyo Electric Power Co. and Japan Atomic Power Co. Under the terms of the agreement, the two companies will build and operate the facilities by 2010, the first of their kind in Japan. The agreement stipulates that Tokyo Electric Power Co. and Japan Atomic Power Co. will remove spent nuclear fuel from the storage facilities before the term for storage, up to 50 years, expires. Mimura said, "(The prefecture) will accept (the planned construction of storage facilities), and we believe safety should be given top priority." Two storage buildings capable of holding up to 5,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel will be built in an area near Sekinehama Port in Mutsu. The construction cost for the facilities is estimated at about $865 million. -------- korea N Korea would accept IAEA visit, Richardson says TOKYO (AFP) Oct 21, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051021062438.fi73iv2m.html North Korea would accept a visit by officials from the UN nuclear watchdog, whose inspectors were kicked out almost three years ago, US politician Bill Richardson said Friday after a trip to the Stalinist state. Pyongyang also reaffirmed its commitment to rejoining the Non-Proliferation Treaty and returning unconditionally to six-nation talks on its nuclear program next month, he told journalists in Tokyo. North Korea suspended its membership in the nuclear NPT in 1993 and placed limitations on International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections. It withdrew from the treaty altogether in December 2002 and kicked out inspectors. Richardson, now governor of the US state of New Mexico, came to Tokyo after a four-day tour of North Korea where he met top officials including Kim Yong-Nam, the Stalinist country's number two, for their third meeting. "They ... indicated they would at an appropriate time invite IAEA officials, including (director) Mohamed ElBaradei, to North Korea," he said. The officials "reaffirmed their commitment to rejoining the Non-Proliferation Treaty, also adhering to IAEA safeguards," said the former energy secretary and UN ambassador under former US president Bill Clinton. He said North Korean officials agreed to return to six-party talks in November "unconditionally". The two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia, and the United States resumed the talks on scrapping North Korea's nuclear arsenal in Beijing in September. A next round is expected in the Chinese capital in November. At the last round of talks, North Korea agreed to a statement of principles under which it would give up its atomic weapons in return for energy and security guarantees. But the secretive state later said it would not dismantle its nuclear arsenal until the United States delivers light-water reactors to allow it to generate power, leaving the prospect of prolonged multilateral wrangling. Richardson said North Korean officials "showed some flexibility" in their attempt to receive the light-water reactors. "They are prepared for oversight of the light water reactors by the United States, the IAEA or other six-party countries, in terms of co-managing, in terms of having the Untied States participate in the fuel-cycle at the front end and the back end," he said. -------- russia Russia test-fires intercontinental ballistic missile Source: Xinhua October 21, 2005 http://english.people.com.cn/200510/21/eng20051021_215641.html Russia's Strategic Missile Troops test-fired an intercontinental ballistic missile from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan on Thursday. The RS-18 Stiletto missile was launched at 11:30 a.m. Moscow time (0730 GMT) and hit its target on the Kura training range on Kamchatka Peninsula, the Itar-Tass news agency quoted a source of the Defense Ministry as saying. "The launch was made under the plan of combat training of the Russian Armed Forces with the purpose of assessing the possibility of extending the life of this type of ballistic missiles," said the Defense Ministry source. The RS-18 missiles have been on combat duty for 30 years and the Stiletto is considered to be very reliable, said the source, adding that the missile's launches in recent years have approved the dependability of the Stiletto missiles and made it possible to extend their life by 20 years. The RS-18, a two-stage rocket, is one of the most advanced ballistic missiles of Russia. With the launch weight of slightly above 105 tons, the Stiletto is capable of delivering a multiple or single warhead weighing 4,300 kg to an intercontinental range. The missile, which is 24.3 meters long and 2.5 meters in diameter, is equipped with a modern control system and antimissile defense penetration aids, the Itar-Tass reported. According to an Interfax report, the Strategic Missile Troops adopted the RS-18 missiles, also known as SS-19, in 1975, and then in 1980 adopted the modernized version. The Strategic Missile Troops have more than 160 missiles of this type, each with six warheads. The RS-18 has a range of over 10,000 kilometers. -------- u.s. nuc weapons U.S. Nuclear Doctrine Will Probably Omit Controversial Text By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire Friday, October 21, 2005 http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_10_21.html#1D11F60F WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is likely to modify a controversial nuclear war-fighting document by dropping language that describes scenarios in which the United States could use nuclear first-strikes against enemy WMD capabilities, a defense official told Global Security Newswire recently (see GSN, Sept. 12). Still, the United States would probably reserve the option to use nuclear weapons in such instances, even if those scenarios are not articulated in the military’s official nuclear doctrine document, the official said. That choice has been available for decades and alluded to in other documents but not specified in previous publicly available versions of the nuclear doctrine. The military, however, might also reduce the prominence of a nuclear first strike as an option against chemical and biological capabilities by seeking to “balance” it, the official said, presumably with non-nuclear options. “They’re coming back to take a much harder look at this,” the official said. The current version of the doctrine was completed in 1995. The move to update it, begun early this decade, was driven in part by the perception of an increasing threat from weapons of mass destruction, the official said. A section of the Joint Staff prepared the draft nuclear doctrine, which has been sent to the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy for review. “It may be as long as a year before it is out now. So, don’t be looking for this anytime soon and I’m not sure that any of that language is going to stay in,” the official said in a telephone interview with Global Security Newswire. Consistency with Values Questioned A final draft of the “Doctrine on Joint Nuclear Operations” was discovered on the Internet in March and the controversial language was the subject of several prominent news articles. The Washington Post reported last month that completion of the doctrine could be delayed well beyond the previous goal of late this summer. U.S. officials mostly have been tight-lipped about what the final document might contain, including the controversial text. “We don’t comment on draft doctrine and it’s not normally publicized,” said the defense official. A section of the text as it appeared on the Internet says U.S. regional commanders could request presidential authorization to use nuclear weapons against an adversary “using or intending to use” weapons of mass destruction, an imminent biological attack, or WMD-related facilities. The defense official said that segment is being reconsidered because of concern about its consistency with U.S. values against causing civilian casualties. “It’s not because some of the complaints from the outside, it’s because of discussion about values from some on the inside here” that has occurred since the text had become more widely known within the defense establishment, the official said. “Because they want American values to be different from a lot of the values that we see among our opponents in the Third World in the global war on terrorism,” the official continued. “These terrorists, they don’t think twice about employing these kinds of things. They don’t care about civilian casualties.” The controversial text appears intended to address scenarios in which an attack by a foreign state that could harm U.S. forces or civilians might be prevented by the threat or use of a U.S. nuclear weapon. “To maximize deterrence of WMD use,” the document says, “it is essential … that U.S. forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use.” Critics have complained that a doctrine allowing for nuclear first-use against chemical or biological capabilities could conflict with U.S. assurances that it would not attack a non-nuclear-weapon state with atomic weapons unless that nation was working in concert with a nuclear power. Further, they have argued the doctrine text could increase the likelihood that the United States would use a nuclear weapon, potentially producing mass civilian casualties. The draft language also could encourage nations to pursue nuclear weapons for deterrence and undermine U.S. efforts to promote nonproliferation, critics said. The military might alternatively simply do away with the doctrine, or make it classified, said Natural Resources Defense Council consultant Hans Kristensen. Kristensen said the military is attempting to do “damage control” and avoid greater public and congressional scrutiny of a policy that already is a reality. “Our strategic submarines out there on patrol are already tasked under [a plan] that has pre-emption in it,” he said. “Operationally, it’s already out there.” ---- Post-Katrina, Pre-Kaboom? BY RUSS WELLEN 09.26.2005 | POLITICS http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.php?id=375 If 9/11 was a body blow to America's national sense of security, Hurricane Katrina knocked the wind out of it. Across the land, the call can be heard: If a natural disaster laid us low, what kind of straits will we be left in if terrorists attack us with a weapon of mass destruction? Of course, beyond biological or chemical, the most pernicious form of a WMD attack is nuclear. Two months after 9/11, Vice President Cheney appeared on CBS-TV's Sixty Minutes II and warned us of an element "able to come into the country and perhaps smuggle weapons of mass destruction in with them and... try to decapitate the federal government." To hear such a declaration by the administration was unusual on three counts. First, for fear of scaring off its audience, the mainstream media avoids nuclear issues. To much of the progressive press, meanwhile, warnings about nuclear terrorism are viewed as fear mongering by the administration to justify intervention in foreign land and curtailment of domestic civil liberties. Another unusual feature of Cheney's statement was that, for once, he was telling the truth, at least in part. He knew that, one month after 9/11, the Department of Energy's Nuclear Emergency Search Team (NEST) conducted a search for a loose nuclear weapon in New York City so secret that even Mayor Giuliani was left out of the loop. Cheney was also aware, as reported in 2004 by Kaushik Kapisthalam in the Asia Times, that the original targets of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his associate Ramzi bin al-Shibh were nuclear reactors. But they decided against it for fear it "would go out of control." (Was this also a rare sighting of Al Qaeda flinching at the prospect of retaliation, no matter how martyr-making?) In addition, Cheney was privy to what Michael Scheuer, the ex-CIA agent who authored Imperial Hubris as Anonymous, chillingly described as "an extraordinarily sophisticated and professional effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction." Meanwhile one can only speculate on what Cheney knows about the reporting of Paul L. Williams, who works the NewsMax.com side of the nuclear terrorism tracks with his books Osama's Revenge and The Al Qaeda Connection. (Graham Allison, author of Nuclear Terrorism, mines the Beltway vein.) Williams, on the basis of mainstream newspaper articles -- a few, surprisingly, American; most foreign -- claims nuclear suitcase bombs have already been smuggled into the US. The final reason Cheney's statement is unique is that the government usually shields us from nuclear terrorism for fear we'll panic and the markets will drop. Or, as Gary North wrote in a 2004 article on LewRockwell.com: "The warning would create such horrendous economic effects -- call this the ATM effect -- that it would paralyze the [the US. Then, should the worst happen] after a nuclear bomb hits an American city, your credit cards will be rejected by all card-swipe machines.... The long-feared inter-bank cascading cross defaults will take down the banks." Besides, according to J.R. Nyquist, author of a 2004 article on FinancialSense.com, warnings are futile. "The most effective security measures are impossible under the present political system," he writes. To admit the reality of nuclear suitcase bombs on US soil, "would be tantamount to admitting that our form of government must come to an end." We'll leave how uncivil our liberties would then become for another debate. Nyquist also claims, "The country is not convinced that such measures are absolutely necessary." That's because, thanks to the government and press not warning them about the threat, the public remains ignorant. And because the public doesn't know, it would never agree to extreme security measures. And, of course, the public doesn't know because the government and press won't warn them. The whir of the centrifuge goes round and round. Is it any wonder then that in New York City concern for nuclear terrorism is subliminal at best? It would probably require the same sensors to detect it as were used during the search for that hypothetical post-9/11 bomb. Meanwhile, on the commuter trains, successful suburbanites extrapolate national security from their personal financial comfort. Not even Hurricane Katrina packed enough power to shake their underlying belief that the government will protect them. The Securities and Exchange Commission will prevent another crash like 1929; military intelligence will head off a weapon of mass destruction at the pass. But, however handcuffed they might feel over their inability to impose extraordinary security measures on the state, are the executive office and other departments tasked with terror prevention still taking steps to protect us? Or has Iraq -- despite the professed WMD pretext for invading it -- diverted their attention? One shudders to think the war instills terrorists with an increased impetus to procure or set off a nuclear suitcase. As it turns out, Cheney et al have taken more than a token stab at reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism. Earlier this year in American Prospect Graham Allison outlined moves he views as constructive on their part. Among them are: First, the administration recognized that the gravest danger to state security lies in what Cheney termed the "nexus between terrorists and weapons of mass destruction." Second, it overthrew the Taliban, demonstrating it holds states harboring terrorists responsible. Third, the administration proposed UN Security Council Resolution 1540, which criminalizes nuclear proliferation. Also, finally presented with an opportunity to enact an extraordinary security measure, it promoted the Proliferation Security Initiative, which allows vehicles be searched for WMDs. Fourth, the administration enlisted other G8 nations to match AmericaÕs $1 billion annual commitment to secure and eliminate former Soviet nuclear weapons. Fifth, the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program now attempts to ferret out nuclear weapons and materials in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Belarus, as it had been in Russia. Meanwhile, last year former Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham and his Russian counterpart Alexander Rumyantsev launched the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, which was designed to remove enriched uranium from research facilities in those same states. On another front, the administration is trying to launch a division of the Department of Homeland Security called the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to prevent the smuggling of nuclear materials across nuclear material. Congress, meanwhile, balked at funding it, in part, because the department plans to devote more resources to detection technology than to halting weapons before they reach US borders. In the interim, the Nuclear Emergency Search Team (NEST,) staffed by Department of Energy scientists, engineers, and support personnel who volunteer for extra duty, perform that function. In his American Prospect article, Graham Allison next assesses the adequacy of these efforts. RussiaÕs twelve time zones, he writes, contain more than 8,000 warheads and enough material for 80,000 more. Yet, even after 9/11, funding for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program hasn't increased. Ted Barlow, a blogger at CrookedTimber.org, offers a plausible reason why the administration, along with the Pentagon and intelligence officials, has reservations about Nunn-Lugar. They believe that we're subsidizing nuclear security for the Russian, who, in turn, use the funds to develop more weapons. Next, Allison is concerned that when Iran succeeds in producing plutonium from uranium, it will supply nuclear weapons to Hezbollah. Meanwhile, since 2003, North Korea has withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, ejected the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, turned off the video cameras monitoring fuel rods, and began producing plutonium. An intransigent administration has refused to negotiate with Pyongyang until the recent, stumbling, six-party talks. North Koreans pledge to forgo nuclear weapons one day; the next they demand a nuclear power plant in return. Journalist Fred Kaplan noted in Slate that North Koreans have long maintained that they would halt construction of nuclear weapons if the United States provided aid, resumed trade, and pledged not to attack. Writes Kaplan: "... it wouldn't have harmed our national interest to forgo an option -- invading North Korea -- that we were never going to exercise in the first place..." In other words, the administration blew a chance for a major diplomatic coup. Meanwhile, as the president for the Center for Defense Information, Bruce G. Blair, points out, US and Russian policies are a paradox. "On the one hand... U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear forces [are] prepared to fight a large-scale nuclear war with each other at a moment's notice. On the other hand... the United States and Russia cooperate closely in securing Russia's nuclear weapons against theft." The administration is also undermining nuclear security by building tactical nuclear bombs, like bunker busters. To make matters worse, the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a document in March titled the "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations." It empowers field commanders to ask the president for permission to use nuclear weapons if they think the situation warrants it. Those range from the predictable -- preemption of a nuclear strike -- to bioterror attacks to the aforementioned bunker busting to state transference of WMD to non-state actors. Equally troubling is the plodding pace at which the administration is widening its focus to include these non-state actors. Meanwhile, Russian nuclear scientists set adrift by their own government and Iraqi scientists by the US are defecting to terrorist organizations. They must be lured into American employ. As Sam Nunn said, "We are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe, and the threat is outrunning our response." Graham Allison, however, still finds reasons to be hopeful. Despite Paul Williams's contention that terrorists have long had nuclear suitcase bombs on US soil, he believes nuclear terrorism is preventable. He's distilled his strategy down to three no's. First, "No Loose Nukes" means no excuses. After all, Allison writes, "The United States does not lose gold from Fort Knox, nor Russia treasures from the Kremlin armory." Second, "No New Nascent Nukes" refers to a loophole in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that must be closed. It allows states to develop nuclear energy, then withdraw from the treaty and divert the energy to weapons development. Third, "No New Nuclear-Weapons States": Both Iran and North Korea, Allison maintains, must be dealt with through a policy of "carrots and sticks." Heretofore, the administration has been all sticks. Finally, as Allison quaintly phrases it, "Citizens must evaluate elected leaders' actions to keep them safe." In fact, a presidential election can be broken down to one issue: survival. For example, Senator John Kerry's virtues as a candidate may have been debatable. But, under the tutelage of Allison, he devised a simplified version of the latter's three no's: "No material. No bomb. No nuclear terrorism." In addition, Kerry planned to created a cabinet-level office solely devoted to nuclear terrorism. As President Bush himself warned, a year after 9/11, "History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act." Finally, a new obstacle to the prevention of nuclear terrorism has arisen. As the Madrid and London bombings have made clear, Al Qaeda today, more of an ideology than an organization, embraces individual cells. As Mark Danner writes in the New York Times, the next attack will come from "viral Al Qaeda, political sympathizers who nourish themselves on Salafi rhetoric and bin Laden speeches and draw what training they require from their computer screens..." No disrespect intended to the invaluable Danner, but when the rest of the media picks up on this theme and harps on it, attention is further diverted from bin Laden. In addition, downplaying his importance only serves to justify our failure -- or lack of intent -- to locate him. Al Qaeda's franchisees may pack up their explosives in their old backpack. But only bin Laden can secure the financing for a nuclear suitcase bomb. And only he, his lieutenant Ayman al Zawahiri, and their shura, or consultation council, have the power to sign off on its deployment. One can understand the administration's reluctance to lean on Pakistan President Musharraf to reel in bin Laden, reputed, in recent years, to walk freely about Islamabad. Riled-up "fundos," as more urbane Pakistanis call them, might overthrow his already shaky administration and take possession of that country's nuclear weapons. But the longer bin Laden remains at large, the longer his trigger finger remains poised over a metaphorical detonator. When it comes to nuclear terrorism, groups like the Chechen separatists may soon rival him, but all roads now lead to bin Laden. ---- Of Nuclear Giants and Ethical Infants By Anwaar Hussain Wednesday, May 18, 2005 http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2005/05/of_nuclear_gian.html In the democracy of the dead all men at last are equal. There is neither rank nor station nor prerogative in the republic of the grave. John James Ingalls. The United Nations Organization was set up by the victorious allies at the end of World War II. The founding charter was endorsed by 51 countries. Today 191 states send delegates to the General Assembly. The opening of 21st century witnessed a severe mauling of this august body. The supposed custodian of world peace, the United Nations was hammered into subservience in the run-up to the Iraq war. The United States and Britain, the Big Two out of the Big Five, trampled upon the world opinion with a rude disdain. Loyalties were bought and sold in plain sight. This brazen demonstration of naked ambitions was openly backed by a crude display of elephantine might. The world stood aghast as a helpless bystander paying an anguished accolade to this vulgar show of unbridled power. As if the United States was in want of a sledge hammer to bully further the already cowed United Nations, or to terrorize any more the by now sufficiently humbled UN, it went ahead and nominated John Bolton as US Ambassador to the UNO…a man known for affectionately keeping a mock grenade in his office. Whatever the outcome of this nomination, the gesture itself is a ringing declaration of American derision for the organization and the rest of the world. It sends a clear message that the United States will not listen to any one and will pursue its own obsessive agenda in the face of a now-universal opposition. With Iran and Syria firmly in the Neoconservatives’ crosshairs, and North Korea not a very distant blip on the horizon, this recommendation rings ominous bells nonstop. The world is stunned at the choice of a person who in 1994 asserted that "there is no such thing as the United Nations" and later that "if the UN Secretariat building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." The preamble of the United Nations Charter states categorically that it is determined “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small….” Accordingly, the purpose of the United Nations is “to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples…” Article 2 of chapter-1 of the UN Charter clarifies further that in pursuit of this purpose the “organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members.” Dizzying ideals, if there ever were ones. Note the lofty words 'equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small' and 'sovereign equality of all its members'. Also please note the veto power of the five permanent powers, the more equal among the equals. Am I the only one seeing the enshrined hypocrisy? A cursory glance at the UN charter is enough to make out the implied democratic spirit of this eminent body. Without bating an eyelash, though, the founding members went ahead and granted themselves the veto power which is any thing but. With one stroke the five holy cows, the United States, Russia, France, Britain and China arrogated to themselves a status more equal than the rest. Here are some interesting facts about the veto power usage of the Big Five; In the 60-year history of the United Nations, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have vetoed more than 250 proposals. Few were for major issues; most were during petty wrangling to block admission of members or nominees to the Security Council. Almost half the number has been cast by the now-faded Russia in its hey days. The United States has invoked its veto power 76 times, usually to ward off condemnations of Israel’s actions. With the withering away of Russia, the United States is the only permanent member of the Security Council to have used its veto power frequently in recent years. In addition to the 251 public vetoes, the permanent members have cast 43 vetoes during closed sessions of the Security Council to block nominees for UN secretary-general. Beijing has cast a veto only four times since it took China’s Security Council seat in 1972, invariably to enforce its view that it and not Taiwan is the rightful government of the country. France also has used its veto power 18 times, usually in teamwork with the United States and Britain, and only twice on its own, to defend its interests in Indochina and in the Indian Ocean. For a long time, among other things, two major factors distinguished the Big Five from the rest…the bomb and the ability to project its devastation at longer distances. Ironically, today after 60 years and a thoroughly changed world makeup, the USA, China and the three washed out glories continue to be the permanent five and, therefore, the veto-wielders. Being an antithesis of the essence of democracy, the veto power of the Big Five desecrates the very soul of the United Nations. An international organization whose members do not have equal rights is anti-democratic, whatever its charter may preach. Only those issues are given universal legality that are blessed by a privileged few, regardless of how the rest of the countries think on these issues. The General Assembly, where the not-so-equals sit, may churn out resolution after resolution; it is the Security Council where these are sanctified to the status of international law. John Bolton was not way far off the mark in his ten-stories-less comment about the United Nations. It is in these ten odd stories that the majority of the General Assembly members have their offices. On no other issue is this dichotomy more clearly exemplified than in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Innumerable resolutions passed by the General Assembly condemning this or that feature of Israeli policy have been quashed by a US veto, sometimes for the mere tone and tenor of the wording more than for anything else. This misuse of the veto power has alienated the majority of countries. They argue that the right that was originally given to the five to protect international peace and security, was now being used to stop the UNSC from merely expressing concern on conditions in a certain region or from even sending there something as innocuous as a fact-finding committee to look into tension in those areas. After putting the recently mauled humanity to sleep with the lofty words given in the preamble of the United Nations Charter in the aftermath of the 2nd World War, the Big Five immediately went to work in the shadowy business of peace keeping in certain other regions of the world. Thus the world witnessed the continued American-blessed Israeli occupation of Palestine since 1948, the Korean war of 1950-53, the Vietnam war of 1954-73, the Anglo-French attack on Suez Canal in 1956, the USSR invasion of Hungary in 1956, the USSR invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, the USSR invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the United States’ Gulf War of 1990-91, the Russian invasion and occupation of Chechnya in 1990, the United States’ invasion and occupation of Afghanistan since 2001 and the current United States’ invasion and occupation of Iraq since 2003. For any system to be governed democratically…be it a state, organization, union, group, association, club, collection or an assembly…its constituent elements must enjoy equal status. Democracy is about these elements and the power that they are given to participate in making all policy decisions. It is revoltingly undemocratic that the fortunes of millions of people of the world are given to a few people to decide. The veto is a creation of powerful nations, without popular legitimacy and authority, and is, therefore, fundamentally undemocratic. The rest of the nations are relegated to mere pawns and also-rans. This philosophy of 'trust me, I know best' is both antiquated and unreasonable. The abuse of the veto power has indeed caused, rather than relieved, numerous problems and conflicts over the past decades. To add insult to the injury, being mere apologies of their former selves, some of these once-powerful nations are no more what they once were. The long overdue reform of the Security Council is a serious issue of major political and strategic significance for the international community. The membership of the United Nations, which is supposed to work to support democracy, participation, transparency and accountability in the world, must be governed by the same principles in deciding upon the issues relating to the membership and the work of the Security Council. The objective must be the growth of a clearly democratic and truly representative Security Council in which there are no sacred cows. The UN has been a study in hypocrisy since its founding. All united under one council, except for the big five who are above the law, is as ironic as it is laughable. No reform can be suggested as no reform is possible when the suggestion itself can be vetoed by any of the Big Five. Only because the five “founding” nations have a veto, they have had an international body that they have been ruthlessly using to push their own agendas and bully other nations into doing what the “collective” wants. One fervently wishes for the day when the real collective does finally wake up. For on that day the Big Five will have to, for once, use their veto power to actually protect themselves from the wrath of that real collective. That will also be the day when the John Boltons of this world will shine in their true luster. In a world beset by so many conflicts, and the only super power having gone berserk to the extent that it is being seen more as a part of the problem than the solution, it is hard to look for silver lining to the dark clouds of gloom. With the chilling nuclear saber rattling by so many actors on the world stage, and the games that these nuclear giants and ethical infants want to play, we may all end up in John James Ingalls democracy of the dead in not too distant a future…with all men equal at last. Despite being a military man, General Omar N. Bradley captured the very essence of it all when he said, “The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.” Copyrights : Anwaar Hussain Email : eagleeye@emirates.net.ae -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- arizona Ariz nuclear power plant comes back online after safety shutdown 10/21/2005 BETH DeFALCO The Associated Press http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/breaking/102105paloverde.php PHOENIX - Two of three generators at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station were expected to be back online today, nearly 10 days after the plant was shut down by Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspectors. One generator was online late Thursday afternoon and a second was expected to be up by night's end, said Jim McDonald, a spokesman for Arizona Public Service, which runs the plant. The plant's third generator remained down for previously scheduled refueling. The plant was shut down Oct. 11 after NRC inspectors raised questions about the emergency reactor cooling system. Plant engineers then ran an analysis that showed parts of the system may not work properly. APS spent the following days recalculating how the emergency cooling system would work, eventually coming to the conclusion that the system would work properly. The NRC has said it has no unusual concerns about the new results, but will examine them as part of a review process. Palo Verde is the nation's largest nuclear plant, with three reactors producing nearly 4,000 megawatts of electricity. APS owns 29.5 percent of the plant and operates it for a consortium of utility companies in four states. The plant supplies electricity to about 4 million customers in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and California. It's uncertain whether the recent shutdown will lead to a rate hike for APS customers. The problem that led to last week's shutdown had apparently been unnoticed since the plant went online in 1986. It revolved around whether pumps drawing water from a large water tank to cool a reactor in an emergency would switch to another source when the tank became low on water. The plant had a reputation among regulators and nuclear watchdogs as one of the better plants in the nation until problems began to crop up two years ago. They included a series of human and procedural mistakes that were minor. Those were followed by two more serious violations, including one that netted the company a $50,000 fine. -------- colorado Extreme makeover for a nuclear factory The Christian Science Monitor's View Fri Oct 21, 4:00 AM ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20051021/cm_csm/erocky Quick. Name a huge - and hugely important - federal government project completed decades ahead of time and billions of dollars under cost estimates. Stumped? Here's a hint. It involves the first cleanup of an idled US nuclear weapons facility. In 1994, a study by the Department of Energy (DOE) estimated it would take 60 years and $37 billion to clean up and demolish the Denver area's Rocky Flats site, a veritable city of government buildings that produced plutonium triggers for nuclear weapons. But last week, in a rare development that holds lessons for the DOE's 38 nuclear weapons facilities, the contractor hired in 1995 to scrub Rocky Flats said the job was done. The 800 buildings had been demolished, the contaminated soil and plutonium removed to guarded storage sites. Time: 10 years. Cost: less than $7 billion. The DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency, and state officials still must verify that the site - which will be turned into a wildlife refuge - meets their safety standards. Because the stakeholders have been working closely together, it's unlikely something major will turn up. Even if it did, though, the project, run by Kaiser-Hill Co., still deserves high praise for the innovations that brought it to an early and cost- effective conclusion - and aided the world's nonproliferation effort. Initially, progress was excruciatingly slow, relations with the various players contentious, and Kaiser-Hill received enforcement actions for safety violations. But frustration prompted changes in approach, and the project turned around. When Kaiser-Hill renegotiated its contract in 2000, for instance, the DOE agreed to an unusual incentive package - eventually more than $500 million and well worth it - to finish early (by December 2006) and under budget. Kaiser-Hill passed the incentive all the way down to hourly workers. Penalties for safety infractions discouraged shoddy work. Congress, tired of inertia, also tried something new. It guaranteed stable funding for the life of the contract. No more waiting for dollars each year. Kaiser-Hill opted for complete transparency. It made all of its data available to state regulators and community groups, and it talked regularly with them. That restored trust. It also involved workers in planning, and encouraged technical innovation. That resulted in a new way of handling huge equipment - decontaminating it to low-level radioactive waste standards, then spraying it with a hardening goop that became its own shipping container. A month-long process of cutting up equipment shrank to a day-long one. It would be a relief if a "Rocky Flats" model could be repeated in the nuclear power industry, stymied by waste-disposal issues. That's unlikely, though. For one thing, commercial nuclear power doesn't have the luxury of DOE facilities to accept its spent fuel rods. Alas, the industry is still waiting for permanent storage below Nevada's Yucca Mountain. But those cleaning up other DOE nuclear weapons sites, such as the difficult one in Hanford, Wa., can learn from Rocky Flats. While much about Rocky Flats was unique, surely flexibility, transparency, incentives, and innovation can cross state lines. ---- Former Rocky Flats Operators Try To Prevent Testimony Of Grand Jury Foreman Court Filings Made In Class Action Lawsuit October 21, 2005 Associated Press http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/5147576/detail.html DENVER -- Attorneys defending operators of the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons site against a multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuit are seeking to prevent testimony by the foreman of a 1992 grand jury that voted to indict officials over contamination there. Attorneys for Rockwell International Corp. and Dow Chemical Co. said in a court filing late Thursday that Wes McKinley, now a member of the state Legislature, was expected to testify about his experiences on the grand jury and about a bill he proposed to warn of potential lingering contamination at the site 10 miles northwest of Denver. McKinley, who said Friday he hopes to be able to testify, refused to answer questions on those subjects during a deposition, citing grand jury secrecy rules, defense attorneys said. "It is obvious that what plaintiffs want McKinley to tell the jury is: `The cleanup effort at Rocky Flats is flawed and there are continuing health risks at Rocky Flats, but because of (secrecy rules) I cannot tell you why I believe this,"' defense attorneys said. "Plaintiffs and McKinley should not be allowed to disclose matters occurring before the grand jury when they believe it to be in their interests to do so, and not disclose such matters when doing so would be adverse to their interests," they said. In a federal trial that is expected to last through December, several residents who owned property near Rocky Flats when it was shut down in 1989 allege that contamination from the plant drastically reduced the value of their property and that of about 13,000 other landowners. They are seeking damages that defense attorneys have said could reach $500 million. In their lawsuit, landowners claimed Rockwell and Dow, who operated the plant under a Department of Energy contract, intentionally mishandled radioactive waste and tried to cover it up. During testimony Friday, landowner Merilyn Cook told the jury she agreed to be one of the lead plaintiffs in the case "to bring out the right." "The truth is a hard thing here," she said during questioning by defense attorney David Bernick. "One of the main ... responsibilities of a class representative is to help find the truth in a situation." Last week, the contractor in charge of a cleanup project at Rocky Flats declared the $7 billion, 10-year project complete, a major milestone in converting the site to a national wildlife refuge. U.S. District Judge John Kane has not ruled on motions by Rockwell and Dow to prevent testimony not only from McKinley, who had been scheduled to testify Friday, but also from Jon Lipsky, a former FBI agent who led a raid at Rocky Flats in 1989. During his deposition, Lipsky refused to answer some questions about his investigation, citing a letter from the FBI "urging him to follow certain confidentiality obligations related to his prior employment," defense attorneys said. Lipsky declined comment. McKinley said he hoped his testimony and Lipsky's would raise public awareness of lingering contamination he believes exists at Rocky Flats. "In another 10 or 15 years it'll pretty much be forgotten. People should have the opportunity to know what went on out there," he said. "It's kind of our duty. There's not a personal thing in it, it's just the fact that some things you really hate to see happening." McKinley unsuccessfully introduced a bill in this year's legislative session to post signs around the wildlife refuge to warn the public about radioactive contamination he believes is still there. He said the measure was killed for lack of funding, but he plans to try to revive it next year. McKinley and his attorney, Caron Balkany, published a book last year accusing the Justice Department of covering up environmental misconduct at Rocky Flats. The book, "The Ambushed Grand Jury: How the Justice Department Covered up Government Nuclear Crimes and How We Caught Them Red Handed," relied in part on interviews with Lipsky. Government officials have denied allegations of a coverup. Indictments that McKinley's grand jury wanted to issue were rejected by prosecutors who worked out a plea agreement. Rockwell pleaded guilty to 10 hazardous waste and clean water violations in 1992 and was fined $18.5 million. -------- florida New (old) power options: Coal, nuclear Florida utilities feel pinch from rising fuel prices, surging population Jill Krueger Staff Writer, American City Business Journals Inc. October 21, 2005 http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2005/10/24/story2.html?t=printable Electrical power companies operating in Central Florida are discussing something they haven't considered seriously in 30 years: new nuclear power plants. With natural gas and petroleum prices soaring and the supply of coal still abundant, utilities officials say they are exploring alternative fuels, including nuclear power, and new methods to run the mega-power plants they will need in the coming decades to keep pace with demand brought on by Florida's population explosion. Consider: Progress Energy Florida is looking to add another nuclear plant in its southern service area and may locate it at its Crystal River nuclear facility. Juno Beach-based Florida Power & Light is part of a group of utilities that wants to put a new nuclear power plant in the Southeast. And Orlando Utilities Commission intends to add a coal gasification unit, which turns coal into gas, at its Stanton Energy Plant in east Orange County. "What you're doing is planning for the next base load plant ... and are looking at the history of fuel prices and what they are going to be," says Rick Kimble, spokesman for Raleigh, N.C.-based Progress Energy Inc., parent company of Progress Energy Florida. But such alternatives as increased coal use or the return of nuclear power are stirring concerns among those who fear safety and environmental issues. "I'm hearing concerns from residents regarding new coal-fired plants," says Holly Binns, field director for the Florida Public Interest Research Group, a Tallahassee-based environmental consumer advocacy group. But, she adds, "That's nothing compared to when they hear that they (utilities) want to build a new nuclear plant." Alternative fuels, methods Utility officials insist there's a great need to explore alternative fuels and power-generation methods, especially since oil and natural gas costs have risen sharply in recent years. The price of crude oil shot up to $69.81 per barrel on Aug. 30, up from $28.98 a barrel on Aug. 30, 2002, and the highest since the early 1980s when adjusted for inflation, according to the American Petroleum Institute. And the price that utilities pay for natural gas under a 12-month contract has risen from $3.33 per million British Thermal Units (BTUs) on Aug. 7, 2002, to $11.83 per million BTUs in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. At the same time, Florida's population is projected to swell to 18.87 million by 2009, and utilities operating in Central Florida and other parts of the state say they are already planning to add new mega-plants to keep up with electric demand. Further, industry officials say the state's power plants are aging. Some of them are 50 years old, Kimble points out. Unfortunately, utility officials say the same fuel options that were available half a century ago -- oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear energy -- are what they now have to work with. That's because in Florida, certain alternate power sources won't run the new mega-watt plants that will be required, utilities experts say. For instance, the state doesn't have enough wind power. And even though Florida is the Sunshine State, its cloud cover doesn't make solar power a cost-effective alternative, officials say. "What are the alternatives?" asks Kevin Bloom, spokesman for the Florida Public Service Commission. Looking to nuclear, coal Utilities are leaning toward nuclear energy and coal because they don't have any other options, they say. Progress Energy Florida, which serves 1.5 million state customers, wants to build a nuclear power plant somewhere within its Florida, North Carolina or South Carolina service area. If a Florida site is selected, it would be the first nuclear reactor in the state since 1983 when FPL added to its plant on Hutchinson Island near Port St. Lucie. "We have notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that we plan to submit an application for construction and an operating license of a nuclear power plant by 2008," Progress Energy's Kimble says. "And we've also said that we will have a location and which type of reactor would power that nuclear plant identified by end of this calendar year." At this point, he says, Progress Energy is considering Crystal River, where it already operates a nuclear plant. FPL, with more than 4 million statewide customers, has two nuclear power plants in Florida and is participating in an effort to create new nuclear reactors in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. Planning for new plants "We are looking at trying to expand and further diversify our fuel supplies," says FPL spokesman Bill Swank. Besides proposing new nuclear plants, utilities are exploring more efficient ways of powering coal plants and alternative fuel delivery methods. For instance, Swank says FPL is considering adding a coal-fired plant in St. Lucie County. Kissimmee Utility Authority and 14 other city utilities that belong to the Florida Municipal Power Agency in Orlando plan to build a coal plant in Perry. In addition, the Orlando Utilities Commission is looking to break ground on a $557 million coal gasification unit at the Stanton Energy Plant in east Orange County in 2007. The unit will convert coal to a synthetic gas that will burn like natural gas. The combined-cycle unit will be able to use either gas or coal. Industry officials say many utilities are equipping their units to take more than one type of fuel so they can use whatever is less costly at the time. OUC, which provides electric and water services to more than 196,000 customers in Orlando, is seeking a $235 million grant to help pay for it. "When it's complete, it will be the most advanced coal-burning technology in the world," says OUC spokesman Grant Heston. FPL, in the meantime, is looking at better ways of delivering liquified natural gas. Under a new process, natural gas is frozen and turned into a liquid that is more easily transportable, then re-gasified at the destination facility, says Swank, explaining that this makes it easier to import natural gas from other countries. "FPL is not an R&D company," Swank says. "We really have to rely on what's happening in the industry." Money, approval drawbacks Nuclear and coal plants, however, raise significant safety and environmental concerns. Nuclear reactors require safety backup systems that must function properly to cool down the nuclear reactors in the event of an accident. Today, when safety equipment isn't functioning properly, which recently happened at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station outside of downtown Phoenix, Ariz., it is shut down and customers are left in the dark. In addition, a utility must securely transport and properly store the spent fuel. And then there's the cost for a new nuclear plant -- tens of billions of dollars. On top of all this, getting a nuclear plant approved is hardly a snap. At the federal level alone, the approval process takes a minimum of 2 1?2 years, explains Roger Hannah, public affairs officer for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which must make environmental, safety and financial antitrust reviews of each application for a new nuclear plant. Coal, meanwhile, has drawbacks as well: Mainly, it requires costly scrubbers to reduce air emissions, says Binns with the Tallahassee consumer watchdog group. Further, she says, a byproduct of coal plants is mercury, which can kill fish in nearby bodies of water and cause learning disabilities in children. Utility officials argue, though, that their goal is to make future power plants less vulnerable to fuel-price fluctuations, whether using a different fuel, or fuel-burning or delivery method. "As we see the natural gas supply start to dwindle, we have to look at other alternatives," KUA spokesman Chris Gent says. Binns' group believes other steps should be taken before Florida starts building a host of new power plants. "The bottom line is that in Florida we shouldn't be building new coal and nuclear power plants until we've done everything feasible on energy efficiency and conservation programs," she says. -------- utah A Tribe Split by Nuclear Waste A lease to temporarily store nuclear waste on the Skull Valley Goshute reservation has divided the community. Neighbors Leon Bear, tribe chairman, and Margene Bullcreek no longer talk. by David Kestenbaum Morning Edition, October 21, 2005 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4967885 On a nondescript patch of desert in Utah live two neighbors who no longer talk to each other. Nuclear waste is the source of their disagreement. Leon Bear and Margene Bullcreek, with about a dozen others, live on the Goshute Native American reservation in Skull Valley. Leon Bear wants to rent out the reservation to store much of the nation's spent nuclear fuel. Bullcreek, who lives across the street from Bear, hates the idea. But after eight years of review, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now putting the finishing touches on a license. If the project goes ahead, some 4,000 canisters of nuclear waste could be brought to the reservation and stay there for up to 40 years. -------- vermont NRC issues report, but doesn't release it By David Gram, Associated Press Writer | October 21, 2005 http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2005/10/21/nrc_issues_report_but_doesnt_release_it/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News MONTPELIER, Vt. --The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Friday it had completed its draft review of Vermont Yankee's plan to increase its power output, but would not make it public yet. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the agency would first send the report to Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Nuclear to allow the company to request which parts of the report it wants kept from public view. "We'll look at their suggested changes, redactions and then we'll release it to the public," Sheehan said. Sheehan and Vermont Yankee spokesman Rob Williams said the safety evaluation contained proprietary information, mainly having to do with the engineering that went into various analyses supporting the position that the plant could safely increase its power output by 20 percent. But the process of redaction could leave little time for members of the public and a nuclear watchdog group that has opposed the power boost to review the report before an NRC panel comes to Vermont for meetings on Nov. 15 and 16. "Those of us who are intervenors need to pass this (NRC report) before our experts," said Raymond Shadis of the New England Coalition. "This is bound to include highly technical information that will take time to review. The NRC has had two years to put this together. Certainly this is short notice." Sheehan said there is no deadline for Entergy to complete its review of the report and make requests for redactions and for the NRC to agree or disagree with those requests. "We'd obviously like them to move as quickly as possible," he said. "We're interested in making the document available before those meetings in Brattleboro." Shadis agreed that there likely will be material in the report that it will be reasonable for Entergy to want to keep secret. "There is a lot of competition when it comes to doing engineering on flow-induced vibration and other phenomena relating to the steam dryer," Shadis said. The plant's steam dryer removes moisture from steam because too-wet steam could damage a reactor's turbines. The steam dryer has received a lot of attention during the NRC review of the power increase request, because two other plants that have instituted similar power increases have developed cracks in their steam dryers. But Shadis said he worried that Entergy and the NRC would agree to keep more secrets than necessary. "The problem for the general public is that the NRC hands out proprietary protection pretty much willy-nilly," he said. "The burden should be on the licensee or applicant to show some material needs protection. Instead the burden is on the general public to show why it should be released." Sheehan disagreed. "We set the bar kind of high," he said. "We do not allow them to casually redact information. There has to be a real basis for information that would be removed." The mid-November meetings of the NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards will take place at the Quality Inn on Putney Road in Brattleboro, Sheehan said. He said there will be an opportunity for public comment at the end of each day. Also upcoming is a meeting of the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel, or V-SNAP. That session at 9 a.m. Oct. 27 in Room 11 of the Vermont Statehouse will focus on a special engineering assessment the NRC did at Vermont Yankee as part of its review of the power increase request. Such a special assessment was requested by the Public Service Board, which made it a condition of the approval it gave in March of last year for the power boost. The board still has not said whether it believed the NRC review that resulted satisfied its condition. ---- Feds withhold Vermont Yankee report from public By Kathryn Casa | Vermont Guardian Posted October 21, 2005 http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/102005/NRCLetter.shtml Federal regulators released their the long-awaited draft report on a proposed power uprate at the Vermont Yankee, but only to the nuclear power station’s owners, not the public — claiming the information it contains is proprietary. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s safety evaluation was also sent Friday to the Advisory Commission on Reactor Safeguards, a quasi-independent panel within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that is scheduled to convene at the Quality Inn in Brattleboro Nov. 15-16 to hear arguments filed by the state of Vermont and the New England Coalition. Both parties are formally designated as intervenors in the case before the NRC, in which Vermont Yankee officials are seeking approval to increase power output at the plant by 20 percent. In a letter sent Friday to NRC staff, New England Coalition technical advisor Ray Shadis said the limited time his organization will have to review the report “strikes us as unfair.” He said intervenors will have little time to review the highly technical information before they must respond to it on Nov. 15. The intervenors had also not been informed about the specifics of the meeting, including how much time and in what format they would be allowed to respond, Shadis complained. The full committee of the ACRS will also meet in closed session at the end of the month, or in early December, at NRC headquarters in Rockville, MD, to discuss the questions, which must either be answered or dismissed before the uprate application can be decided. The Vermont meetings will be open to the public. Although the agenda was not complete on Friday, according to a preliminary schedule, both morning sessions will be set aside for technical presentations by the NRC staff and Entergy to address the question of containment overpressure, steam dryer cracking and the results of the NRC inspection of the plant. The afternoon sessions are expected to be set aside for interested parties and members of the public to voice their views. People who wish to speak may contact ACRS staff member Ralph Carusa in advance at (301) 415-8065. There will also be a sign-up sheet at the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order that they sign up. Caruso said no signs will be allowed at the meeting. ---- NRC issues report, but doesn't release it WCAX-TV Burlington VT October 21, 2005 http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=4011678&ClientType=Printable MONTPELIER, Vt. -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Friday it had completed its draft review of Vermont Yankee's plan to increase its power output, but would not make it public yet. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the agency would first send the report to Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Nuclear to allow the company to request which parts of the report it wants kept from public view. "We'll look at their suggested changes, redactions and then we'll release it to the public," Sheehan said. Sheehan and Vermont Yankee spokesman Rob Williams said the safety evaluation contained proprietary information, mainly having to do with the engineering that went into various analyses supporting the position that the plant could safely increase its power output by 20 percent. But the process of redaction could leave little time for members of the public and a nuclear watchdog group that has opposed the power boost to review the report before an NRC panel comes to Vermont for meetings on Nov. 15 and 16. "Those of us who are intervenors need to pass this (NRC report) before our experts," said Raymond Shadis of the New England Coalition. "This is bound to include highly technical information that will take time to review. The NRC has had two years to put this together. Certainly this is short notice." Sheehan said there is no deadline for Entergy to complete its review of the report and make requests for redactions and for the NRC to agree or disagree with those requests. "We'd obviously like them to move as quickly as possible," he said. "We're interested in making the document available before those meetings in Brattleboro." Shadis agreed that there likely will be material in the report that it will be reasonable for Entergy to want to keep secret. "There is a lot of competition when it comes to doing engineering on flow-induced vibration and other phenomena relating to the steam dryer," Shadis said. The plant's steam dryer removes moisture from steam because too-wet steam could damage a reactor's turbines. The steam dryer has received a lot of attention during the NRC review of the power increase request, because two other plants that have instituted similar power increases have developed cracks in their steam dryers. But Shadis said he worried that Entergy and the NRC would agree to keep more secrets than necessary. "The problem for the general public is that the NRC hands out proprietary protection pretty much willy-nilly," he said. "The burden should be on the licensee or applicant to show some material needs protection. Instead the burden is on the general public to show why it should be released." Sheehan disagreed. "We set the bar kind of high," he said. "We do not allow them to casually redact information. There has to be a real basis for information that would be removed." The mid-November meetings of the NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards will take place at the Quality Inn on Putney Road in Brattleboro, Sheehan said. He said there will be an opportunity for public comment at the end of each day. Also upcoming is a meeting of the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel, or V-SNAP. That session at 9 a.m. Oct. 27 in Room 11 of the Vermont Statehouse will focus on a special engineering assessment the NRC did at Vermont Yankee as part of its review of the power increase request. Such a special assessment was requested by the Public Service Board, which made it a condition of the approval it gave in March of last year for the power boost. The board still has not said whether it believed the NRC review that resulted satisfied its condition. -------- us nuc waste NRC rules groups can raise waste disposal issue 10/21/2005 12:11:00 PM (AP) http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?ID=12521 ALBUQUERQUE -- An official of a company proposing a uranium enrichment plant near Eunice says he agrees with a regulatory agency's decision to let environmentalists raise more questions about radioactive waste disposal. Louisiana Energy Services wants to begin construction next August. The plant would make fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is holding hearings on waste disposal issues Monday in Rockville, Maryland. It ruled that two environmental groups will be able to raise questions about the company's plans for disposing of depleted uranium. A vice president for Louisiana Energy Services, Marshall Cohen, says it's a good ruling. He says the company expects to prevail at the hearings. -------- MILITARY -------- arms Israel suspends contract to upgrade Venezuelan F-16s JERUSALEM (AFP) Oct 21, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051021025215.kuxm7fwb.html Israel has frozen a contract with Venezuela to upgrade its US-manufactured F-16 fighter jets under pressure from Washington, Israeli public radio said on Thursday, quoting unnamed officials. The officials said that Israel had frozen the 100-million-dollar contract in a bid to avoid irking Washington further following the crisis sparked by an arms contract between Israel and China. Israel's ties with its usually staunch US ally took a major hit from the row over a controversial weapons deal under which Israel was to upgrade a consignment of drones it had sold to China. Washington imposed a series of sanctions on Israel's defence industry over the deal to upgrade Harpy Killer drones, amid concerns that advanced US defence technology contained in Israeli equipment could be used against Taiwan. The Israeli government had been particularly keen to resolve the dispute with Washington at a time when it was seeking US support for its historic pullout from the Gaza Strip. The officials quoted by Israeli public radio suggested that Washington had quashed the contract with Venezuela on protectionist grounds, as the suspension could lead Caracas to cancel the contract altogether. Israel also had to pay Beijing 350 million dollars in compensation after breaking an agreement in 2000 to supply Falcon airplanes with an AWACS radar system. Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, a firebrand politician fond of neo-Marxist rhetoric, has rankled Washington with his constant assertions that, since a failed 2002 coup against him he said was organised by the CIA, he is an assassination target for the United States. US officials have also expressed concerns about his ties with Iran and his support for Tehran's nuclear programme. -------- chemical weapons Canada to give 47 mln US dollars to Russia for chemical weapons destruction OTTAWA (AFP) Oct 21, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051021192702.tgw5romb.html Canada will give Russia 55 million dollarsmillion US dollars) to Russia to help fund the destruction of Russian nerve agent-filled weapons that could wipe out the world's population several times over, the foreign ministry said Friday. The aid will allow Russia to buy the essential equipment needed for the completion of a chemical weapons destruction facility for nerve agent-filled munitions at the chemical weapons complex near Shchuch'ye in central Russia, the ministry said in a statement. "Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew today announced a contribution of 55 million dollars for the destruction of chemical weapons in Russia," the ministry said. "This project will eliminate approximately 1.9 million artillery shells filled with highly lethal nerve agents," the ministry said. The ministry said the Russian arsenal consists of 5,440 tonnes of the deadly nerve agents sarin, soman and VX, which are stored in more than 1.9 million artillery and rocket-launched munitions. "The artillery shells pose a particular risk because they are small enough to be carried and are thus especially attractive to terrorists. The Shchuchye arsenal contains enough agents to kill everyone on earth several times over," it said. Russia has the world's biggest stockpile of chemical weapons -- more than 40,000 tonnes. The Russian government has pledged to progressively eliminate the stockpile, most of them left over from the Soviet era, by 2012. The Shchuch'ye chemical weapons destruction facility is one of six being built in Russia, which currently has only one such facility, in the Saratov region. The contribution announced Friday is part of Canadas overall commitment of up to one billion dollars over 10 years toward the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, led by the Group of Eight leading industrialized countries, the ministry said. At a G8 summit in Kananaskis, Canada, in 2002, the seven richest countries offered Russia up to 20 billion US dollars to destroy stocks of military plutonium and chemical weapons and to secure weapons facilities. -------- china Guessing game continues: How large is China's defense budget? BEIJING (AFP) Oct 21, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051021014733.pxwb5rsx.html While everyone knows China is a rising power, they can only guess at how strong its armed forces are, or how much it is spending to build its military might. The issue of the size of China's defense budget reemerged this week as US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited Beijing. He used every opportunity to voice concern over his host nation's military expansion, which he said was sending "mixed signals" about China's intentions. "Many countries ... have questions about the pace and the scope of China's military expansion," he said at the Central Party School, speaking to future leaders of the Asian giant. Defense Minister Cao Guangchuan denied that China has understated its defense spending and insisted that raising the living standards of the country's poor made it "impossible to massively increase" military expenditure. According to the official Chinese state budget, defense spending this year will rise by 12.6 percent to about 30 billion dollars, maintaining the double digit expenditure seen over much of the last 15 years. But most analysts believe this is an understatement, as the budget does not include new arms purchases and weapons research and development. The Pentagon has provided one of the more bold estimates of China's real spending on the military, saying in its annual report on China in July that it may be up to three times larger than officially admitted. That would make the People's Liberation Army the best-funded in Asia and number three worldwide after the United States and Russia. The Pentagon report detailed China's efforts to increase its ballistic missile strength and modernize its conventional forces with acquisitions abroad of everything from advanced fighter jets to computerized information systems. Few foreign observers dispute that China is camouflaging some of its defense spending -- as do many other countries. "I really don't think this, on a practical level, is very significant, I don't think it's very unusual," said Paul Harris, an expert on China at Hong Kong's Lingnan University. "Having said that, I do think it's in China's interest to be more transparent, because it has a mantra of rising peacefully to the benefit of everybody in the region, and if that's the case, then why hide things?" China has repeatedly stressed any military buildup is for defensive purposes only, and foreign ministry spokesman Kong Quan insisted Thursday the United States had nothing to be concerned about. "As we have already said many times, China's strengthening of its own defense ability is completely appropriate. There is nothing to be suspicious or worried about," he told a briefing. Jon Sigurdson, a visiting research fellow at the East Asian Institute of the National University of Singapore, said China might not be disclosing important defense items out of a compulsion for secrecy. "Maybe it's a question of how the budget is structured, rather than that they are trying to hide it," he said. "Many of the national projects for microprocessors and other related technology have direct and very important significance for the military. But they're basically structured as civilian programs which in principle they are." For instance, in the Japanese military budget many research and development items are not included, he said. "You have a similar situation in many other countries. Not everything that's directly or indirectly related to the defense sector is actually included in the official figures," he said. The United States itself is not including every conceivable military item in its defense budget, according to Harris. "It's a little bit rich of Donald Rumsfeld to come and lecture the Chinese when the Americans do this kind of thing all the time, especially with regards to the intelligence budget," he said. "It's only in recent years that we've been even given an overall figure for how much spending there is in the United States on intelligence, but we have no idea precisely where it goes." -------- prisoners of war Lawyer: Guantanamo Detainees on Hunger Strike Tortured and Violently Force-Fed by Guards, Medical Staff Friday, October 21st, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/144252 We speak with attorney Julia Tarver who is representing detainees at Guanatanamo Bay. She says her clients - who are participating in a hunger strike to protest their mistreatment and indefinite detention - told her guards and medical staff forcibly shoved large feeding tubes up their noses and down into their stomachs, and used the same tubes from one patient to another. [includes rush transcript] For the past three months, over 100 detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay have been on a hunger strike protesting their conditions at the prison and their indefinite detentions. The United States is holding about 500 detainees at Guantanamo. Some prisoners have now been held for almost four years without charge. The hunger strike began in the first week of August. At its height in mid-September, 131 detainees were participating. In newly declassified documents, made public by their defense attorneys, detainees on the strike claim that they were mistreated by U.S soldiers. The detainees say that they were violently force-fed with large, dirty feeding tubes and that the soldiers taunted them, saying that the treatment was intended to force them to end the strike. - Julia Tarver, attorney with the New York City-based law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and cooperating counsel with the Center for Constitutional Rights. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: We're now joined by Julia Tarver. She’s an attorney representing ten detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Three are on hunger strike. She returned from Guantanamo on October 2. Welcome to Democracy Now! JULIA TARVER: Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: What have you found? JULIA TARVER: What we found is that the situation at Guantanamo has deteriorated drastically, even since our previous visit at the end of July. The level of hopelessness in the camp has reached a point where our clients are literally vowing they have no other choice but to die. The treatment they are receiving from the guards and the medical staff at Guantanamo is very, very disturbing. What we've learned is that in some sort of ill-advised attempt to stop the hunger strike, the guards and the medical staff are using intervention, medical intervention, to actually inflict forms of torture on our clients. They claim that in order to preserve life at the base they are inserting tubes into the clients' noses that go down into their stomachs, and they're able to be fed that way. But the problem is the clients have told us horrific stories repeatedly, from different clients, about how these same tubes are being forcibly inserted in by riot guards, how they're taken from one detainee and inserted into the next detainee with no sanitization, with the bile and the blood still on the tube from the previous detainee. JUAN GONZALEZ: And all the while these detainees are shackled most of the time? What did you find? JULIA TARVER: What we've understood is that for various periods of time they were definitely shackled, multiple shackles on their arms, on their legs, on their knees, on their heads. When they insisted over and over again that they would not resist, because they knew resistance was futile, some of that shackling stopped. But every time, we understand, that the tubes were inserted, these riot teams were involved. Six men holding one client down while someone inserts a tube up their nose and into their stomach. AMY GOODMAN: How do you get this information? Do you meet with your clients at Guantanamo? JULIA TARVER: Exactly. You know, the government, in the hearing we had last week, dismissed these allegations as mere storytelling, an accusation from them that I found rather insulting, because I, myself, was there. I saw my clients' condition. I saw them with the tubes up their noses. We had independent interviews with more than one client, who had had no way to contact each other in between, who told us precisely the same horrific tales. AMY GOODMAN: Now, Julia Tarver, you're a cooperating counsel with the Center for Constitutional Rights. JULIA TARVER: That's right. AMY GOODMAN: But you're with the corporate law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. JULIA TARVER: That's right. AMY GOODMAN: What do you usually do? What kind of legal work? JULIA TARVER: My usual legal work is various complex and high-profile litigation for Fortune 500, 100 companies. Paul, Weiss also has a very proud tradition of doing pro bono work, so this is one example of the type of pro bono work we do. JUAN GONZALEZ: And the kind of conditions that you encountered here in Guantanamo? I know you said earlier before we went on the air that you had done some death penalty work. Compare the kinds of conditions you find here to the jails that you've dealt with here in the United States. JULIA TARVER: Well, the most frustrating thing for me as a lawyer and, I think, for our clients is that in the death penalty context no matter how severe it may seem at times, there is a court. You know that one day your rights and your claims will be heard. There is a predictable process. There is a process for justice. The real hopelessness that is driving this strike at Guantanamo is they have no idea when, if ever, justice will come to them. AMY GOODMAN: What is the U.S. government response? JULIA TARVER: The government filed a response yesterday. Quite frankly, they didn't even want to file a response. They didn't think the allegations merited a response. But a judge in the D.C. District Court rather strongly advised them. She thought it was in the government's best interest to have them file a response. In that response, they concede some of the things that we have alleged, while at the same time claiming that this is all for the detainees’ own benefit and that it's all being done in a medically appropriate way. AMY GOODMAN: What about the role of medical officers in what's happening to these detainees? Doctors, psychologists? JULIA TARVER: That was one of the most shocking things that we heard when we asked our clients, you know, when these riot teams were involved in this behavior, when they reinserted a tube from another detainee, surely no doctor was present. And they more than once said a doctor was present. AMY GOODMAN: Who? JULIA TARVER: Actually, that's still classified by the government, unfortunately. AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean? JULIA TARVER: The government has not permitted us to speak publicly about the descriptions we received of that medical doctor. JUAN GONZALEZ: And what about the taunting that -- the alleged taunting that has occurred in some cases? JULIA TARVER: Well, again, I think, you know, at the very time these people are gravely ill, such to the point that the military is recognizing forced medical intervention has to happen, you have people who are taunting the clients, saying, “This is what your religion has brought you. You have to stop the hunger strike. We will not let you die.” They're taunting them. They're not allowing them to sleep. It's really quite horrific behavior. AMY GOODMAN: Have you talked to the commander of the camp? JULIA TARVER: We've talked to everyone we could. We don't get a very positive response, quite frankly, when we're down at Guantanamo. There's very little that the government will do to us as lawyers to respond to our complaints. They seem to think that Guantanamo is a jurisdiction unto its own with no laws and no justice. AMY GOODMAN: So how does this compare to your other work? I mean, were you surprised when you actually went down, although you had presumably heard a lot of descriptions secondhand? JULIA TARVER: We had been on our trip in July. It was right after first hunger strike. So we had seen what it was like to meet with these clients when they had been on a hunger strike for a long period of time. But the situation is drastically different. This is really sort of an Alice in Wonderland-type environment for us, because we're trying to gain the trust of these clients, trying to give them some hope that the American judicial system will intervene, will get them charged or released, as is the American way. AMY GOODMAN: So, they have not been charged? JULIA TARVER: They have not been charged by any judicial system. AMY GOODMAN: How long have they been held? JULIA TARVER: Our clients have been held for nearly four years. AMY GOODMAN: And you have no idea why they're being held? JULIA TARVER: We know that the President made a blanket statement about all the 500-plus detainees, that they were all enemy combatants. We know that combatant status review tribunals, that our clients don't even really participate in, were held in which the military confirmed their own decision that these were enemy combatants. But there has been no real evidence of the type cognizable in any court of law in the united states. JUAN GONZALEZ: And are you free to talk about the particular condition of your -- you have three clients that you're representing there? JULIA TARVER: We actually have ten clients, three of whom are in the most grave condition. JUAN GONZALEZ: And in terms of how it was that they say they got to Guantanamo? JULIA TARVER: We've been able to talk with them. But the government has a blanket rule that anything they say to us is automatically classified until we take the steps to present it to the government and try to persuade them to declassify it. AMY GOODMAN: Do you think the extent of the difficulty, to put it mildly, of the conditions is being conveyed in the media in this country? JULIA TARVER: Sadly, I don't understand why it is not. But it clearly is not. You know, I speak to my colleagues at the office and other friends around the country, and they have no idea what's happening at Guantanamo. AMY GOODMAN: What do you think needs to happen to change the conditions? I mean, is it -- you're representing your clients in a courtroom. What else do you think needs to happen? JULIA TARVER: I think that, you know, the C.C.R., and others involved in this work, has continually called for some kind of a commission, an independent body to investigate what is happening at Guantanamo and other places where the U.S. military has admitted it doesn't believe that the Geneva Conventions apply. AMY GOODMAN: And this idea of your not being a lawyer for C.C.R., but a cooperating counsel with a corporate law firm, how many law firms are doing this kind of work pro bono? JULIA TARVER: There are hundreds of lawyers around the country doing this work pro bono. Many, many important private law firms and also solo practitioners are involved in this work. JUAN GONZALEZ: And have the main Bar associations, do you believe, been vocal enough in terms of raising the issues of what are some of the fundamental legal problems occurring with these detainees? JULIA TARVER: The Bar associations have done some. I don't think it's ever been enough. I think a lot more needs to be done. But I think the fundamental problem is we need someone who listens to these voices and cares and someone who will help us get some kind of independent commission and oversight of these activities. AMY GOODMAN: Julia Tarver, I want to thank you very much for being with us JULIA TARVER: Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: Julia Tarver is a cooperating attorney with Center for Constitutional Rights. She's with the New York City based corporate law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. -------- spies James Bond goes Japanese? Tokyo eyes MI6-style spy agency Oct. 21, 2005 By TSUKASA ARITA The Japan Times http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20051021f2.htm The idea of a Japanese James Bond may sound hilarious, but serious discussions are under way in Japan on whether to create a secret intelligence service along the lines of Britain's MI6 to conduct overseas espionage. The deliberations were triggered by a proposal from a panel of experts under Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura that was tasked with coming up with ways of strengthening the country's international information-gathering systems. The five-member committee is headed by Yoshio Omori, a former chief of the Cabinet Information Research Office, and includes military critic Kensuke Ebata. The group came up with the proposal last month after reaffirming that Japan's current system information-gathering capabilities are not commensurate with its international standing. The Foreign Ministry, the Cabinet Information Research Office, the Defense Agency, the National Police Agency and the Public Security Investigation Agency each collect and analyze information from overseas, but "Japan is the only major country that does not have an overseas information-gathering organization," a government source said. The issue of creating an international spy organization has never gotten broad support in Japan, largely due to the fact that Tokyo gets its intelligence information from the United States under the bilateral security agreement. In addition, the Japanese have a deep-rooted sense of wariness of intelligence agencies that stems from the country's bitter experience with its "special political police force" before World War II and an overall negative image of espionage, many observers have said. The end of the Cold War, North Korea's nuclear program and the global spread of terrorism in recent years have demanded the government collect and examine more information from abroad, but it cannot do those jobs properly. In 1996, when the Japanese ambassador's official residence in Peru was attacked by armed guerrillas, Omori was head of the Cabinet Information Research Office. It is a "shameful story," Omori said. 'Nobody (in the Japanese government) knew about the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement guerrillas, and we had to ask the United States" for information about them, he said. Britain's MI6, which the panel cited as an agency Japan could model its own intelligence agency after, is under the jurisdiction of the foreign minister. Contrary to the flashy images conveyed by the James Bond movies, MI6 has no legal authority to conduct investigations and is said to only handle information. While the CIA may come to the minds of many Japanese as a prominent intelligence organization, Omori described both the activities and scale of the U.S. intelligence service's operations as beyond comparison to any other agency. During a visit to London in July, Machimura secretly met MI6 executives to exchange ideas on how intelligence agencies should operate, government sources said. But one government official in charge of overseas information analyses warned about pushing ahead too quickly with the matter. "People's suspicion that intelligence agencies can become dangerous organizations at the drop of a hat runs deep," the official said. "That warning needs to be taken seriously." Machimura has acknowledged the public's concerns and has indicated that people's understanding is necessary to bring the plan to fruition. "It is a matter that will require time," he said. "But we want to take it steadily forward, step by step." ---- Scott Ritter on the Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein Friday, October 21st, 2005 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/144258 We speak with Scott Ritter, the chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 about his new book: "Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein." It details how the CIA manipulated and sabotaged the work of UN departments to achieve the foreign policy agenda of the United States in the Middle East. [includes partial transcript] In a major article in The New York Times this weekend, reporter Judith Miller admitted she was wrong when she wrote several of the key articles that claimed Iraq had an extensive weapons of mass destruction program ahead of the 2003 invasion. Miller wrote, "W.M.D. -- I got it totally wrong. The analysts, the experts and the journalists who covered them -- we were all wrong." Today we are joined by someone who was not wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - Scott Ritter. He was the United Nations" top weapons inspector in Iraq at UNSCOM between 1991 and 1998. Before working at the UN he served as an officer in the US marines and as a ballistic missile adviser to General Schwarzkopf in the first Gulf war. Scott Ritter has just published a new book titled "Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein." The book details how the CIA manipulated and sabotaged the work of UN departments to achieve the foreign policy agenda of the United States in the Middle East. * Scott Ritter, was the United Nations' top weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998. Before working for the UN he served as an officer in the US marines and as a ballistic missile adviser to General Schwarzkopf in the first Gulf war. He is author of a new book, just out, titled "Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein." RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!. SCOTT RITTER: Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Well, what do you think is the greatest misunderstanding of the American people right now about what has happened in Iraq? SCOTT RITTER: Well, first of all, the reason that we're there. They think that this was an accident, that this was a noble cause, that people like the president, like Bill Clinton before him, like their respective administrations, journalists like Judith Miller just honestly got it wrong. And I don't think – you know, here we are today in Iraq and it's a disaster. I don't think anybody's going to debate that statement. Some people say though, ‘We're working towards a continuation of this noble objective. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. That's a good thing. And now we're going to try to build on that good.’ I'm not going to debate whether or not getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a good thing or not. But, you know, if you embrace the notion that the ends justify the means, that's about as un-American a notion as you can possibly get into. We're talking about solving a problem. We have yet to define the problem. The problem isn't just what's happening in Iraq but it's the whole process that took place in the United States leading up to the war, this dishonest process of deliberately deceiving the American public. And it's not just George W. Bush. For eight years of the Clinton administration, that administration said the same things. The C.I.A. knew, since 1992, that significant aspects of the Iraqi weapons programs had been completely eliminated, but this was never about disarmament AMY GOODMAN: How did they know this? SCOTT RITTER: They knew it, (a) because of their own access to intelligence information and (b) because of the work of the weapons inspectors. In October of 1992, I personally confronted the C.I.A. on the reality that we had accounted for all of Iraq's ballistic missile programs. That same year they had an Iraqi defector who had laid out the totality of the Iraqi biological weapons program and had acknowledged that all of the weapons had been destroyed. The C.I.A. knew this. But, see, the policy wasn't disarmament. The policy was regime change. Disarmament was only useful in so far as it facilitated regime change. That's what people need to understand, that this was not about getting rid of weapons that threatened international peace and security. This has been about, since 1991, solving a domestic political embarrassment. That is the continued survival of Saddam Hussein, a man who in March 1990 was labeled as a true friend of the American people and then in October 1990 in a dramatic flip-flop was called the Middle East equivalent of Adolph Hitler. JUAN GONZALES: You were involved for quite a long time with UNSCOM. At what point did you, as you were working for the United Nations, reach the conclusion that regime change really was the intent of the program that – well, the United States intent behind the program that you were involved with? SCOTT RITTER: It wasn't a matter of reaching a conclusion. When I joined in September of 1991, that was already the stated policy of the United States government. I outlined this in the book. The fact that in April, 1991, the United States helps draft and then votes in favor of a Chapter 7 resolution 687 that creates the weapons inspections, call upon Iraq to disarm and in Paragraph 14 says if Iraq complies, economic sanctions will be lifted. This is the law. A few months later, the president, George Herbert Walker Bush and the Secretary of State say economic sanctions will never be lifted against Iraq, even if they comply with their obligation to disarm, until which time Saddam Hussein is removed from power. It's the stated policy of the United States government. What we weren't quite aware of is just to what extreme they would go in undermining the credibility and integrity of the United Nations inspection process to achieve this objective. AMY GOODMAN: Something that has been repeated over and over again is that Saddam Hussein kicked out the U.N. weapons inspectors. Can you tell us what happened? SCOTT RITTER: Well, there are several periods of time, but the most dramatic is the December 1998 period right before Bill Clinton got on national TV, talked about the threat of W.M.D. and said he is launching an air campaign, 72 hours of bombardment called Operation Desert Fox. No, Saddam did not kick the inspectors out. Actually, what was happening at that point in time is that the Iraqi government was complying with every single requirement set forth by the Security Counsel and the inspectors. They were cooperating with the inspectors, giving the inspectors access in accordance to something called the ‘modalities of sensitive site inspections.’ Public perception is that the Iraqis were confrontational and blocking the work of the inspectors. In 98% of the inspections, the Iraqis did everything we asked them to because it dealt with disarmament. However when we got into issues of sensitivity, such as coming close to presidential security installations, Iraqis raised a flag and said, “Time out. We got a C.I.A. out there that's trying to kill our president and we're not very happy about giving you access to the most sensitive installations and the most sensitive personalities in Iraq.” So we had these modalities, where we agreed that if we came to a site and the Iraqis called it ‘sensitive,’ we go in with four people. In 1998, the inspection team went to a site. It was the Baath Party headquarters, like going to Republican Party headquarters or Democratic Party headquarters. The Iraqis said, “You can't come in – you can come in. Come on in.” The inspectors said, “The modalities no longer apply.” The Iraqis said, “If you don't agree to the modalities, we can't support letting you in,” and the Iraqis wouldn't allow the inspections to take place. Bill Clinton said, “This proves the Iraqis are not cooperating,” and he ordered the inspectors out. But you know the United States government ordered the inspectors to withdraw from the modalities without conferring with the Security Council. It took Iraqis by surprise. Iraqis were saying, “We're playing by the rules, why aren’t you? If you're not going play by the rules, then it’s a game that we don't want to participate in.” Bill Clinton ordered the inspectors out. Saddam didn't kick them out. JUAN GONZALEZ: Your point that this kind of deception occurred under both Democrats and Republicans would at least suggest that what's happened in Iraq is not just a question of a bunch – of a cabal of zealots in the White House right now that are conducting this – that are hijacking policy but that there are deeper interests involved in the United States and the kind of policy that we've had in Iraq. You get into some of that in the book. Could you talk about that a little bit? SCOTT RITTER: Well, I don't want to sound – I'm not somebody who’s into conspiracy theories, and I'm not somebody who’s out there saying this is about global oil. The tragedy of Iraq is that it’s about domestic American politics. This is a president, George Herbert Walker Bush, who in 1990, traps himself rhetorically by linking Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler. Once you do that, once you speak of a Nuremburg-like retribution, you can't negotiate your way out of that problem. Now it's either deliver Saddam Hussein's head on a platter or you failed. He tried to during the Gulf War. I was part of a team that was targeting Saddam. We didn't succeed. Now the C.I.A. says, “Don't worry, Saddam will be gone in six months. All you have to do is contain him, put these sanctions in place and keep him bottled up and he'll collapse.” Six months later Saddam Hussein is still there. His continued survival became a political embarrassment that had to be dealt with. This was inherited by Bill Clinton. The irony is that Bill Clinton – and I'm very critical of Bill Clinton, but you know, in the period between his election in 1992 and his being sworn in, his administration reached out to the Iraqis in saying, “Look, this is a ridiculous policy, let's figure out how we can get sanctions lifted and get you back into the family of nations.” But when politicians in Congress, both Democrat and Republican, found out about this, they said, “You can't do this. We have told our constituents this man is Hitler, and we can't negotiate with the devil.” We were trapped by this policy. And this cabal we speak of, the neoconservatives, they may not have originated this policy but they exploited eight years of Clinton administration's ineffective policy of dealing with Saddam. Saddam's survival for eight years empowered the neoconservatives to use regime change as a rallying cry for the Republican Party. [break] -------- us Walter Reed helps Boy Scouts earn merit badge by Michael E. Dukes Acting Assistant Editor October 21, 2005 DCMilitary.com http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/10_42/local_news/37779-1.html A group of Walter Reed Army Medical Center nuclear medicine specialists helped 16 members of a local Boy Scout troop earn their nuclear science merit badge earlier this month. Lt. Col. Stacia Spridgen, Maj. Christopher Pitcher, Maj. Aaron Stack, Capt. Brandi Schuyler and Sgt. Willie Clark gave a comprehensive introduction in nuclear medicine to the Scouts, from Troop 466 of Silver Spring. Pitcher, operations branch chief of the Health Physics Office, gave the Scouts several hands-on demonstrations including radiation detection equipment and an exercise in radiation physics. He gave an overview of a nuclear medicine camera room and an x-ray suite. "This was a great event," Pitcher said. "The Scouts truly showed interest during the event, which is a wonderful thing considering the general paranoia of radiation that is so prevalent in America today." Stack, assistant chief of Nuclear Medicine Service, discussed the different radiology and nuclear medicine studies performed at Walter Reed. He also explained what was gained from those projects. "It seemed that the Scouts had a keen interest and were very involved in the morning," Stack said. Spridgen and Schuyler, both nuclear pharmacists here, desribed the biological effects and hazards of radiation to humans, the environment and wildlife. They also described different technical terms like atom, ionization, isotope, radon, and sievert. The nuclear pharmacists asked the Scouts to construct 3-D models for the atoms of three isotopes of a given element from the periodic table of elements. The Scouts also created drawings showing how nuclear fission, how chain reactions can be started and stopped. "The trip was extraordinarily informative for the fathers as well as the Scouts," said John Hicklin, one of the fathers who accompanied the troop. "We were impressed by, and very grateful for, the quality of the presentations made as well by the willingness of [Walter Reed staff] to give up their time." "The event really seemed to spark an interest in science for the Scouts," said Chip Castell, another adult who attended the event. The Scouts chose Walter Reed: "Because of the efforts of Scout mom [Capt.] Brandi Schuyler and gracious response efforts of numerous pharmacists, doctors and medical professionals at Walter Reed who gave their time to educate our Scouts," said Thomas Johnson, another adult who accompanied the troop. "100 percent of the 16 Boy Scouts who attended the field trip will complete this merit badge this year," Johnson added. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- torture MI5 'acts on facts gained under torture' By Duncan Gardham (Filed: 21/10/2005) UK Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/21/ntorture21.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/21/ixportal.html The head of MI5 has submitted evidence to the House of Lords indicating that her agents are prepared to act on intelligence obtained under torture in the fight against terrorism. In a seven-page statement to the law lords, Eliza Manningham-Buller said experience showed that material received from foreign authorities as a result of what she called "detainee reporting" had "proved to be very valuable in disrupting terrorist activity". Eliza Manningham-Buller Ms Manningham-Buller said that MI5 and the secret intelligence service MI6 did not, as a rule, inquire closely into the origin of information received from foreign security agencies, especially when an urgent response was needed. "Where circumstances permit", the agencies would seek to acquire "as much context as possible" about how the information was obtained, she wrote. But she added: "Where the reporting is threat-related, the desire for context will usually be subservient to the need to take action to establish the facts, in order to protect life." The Law Lords are considering an earlier Appeal Court ruling that evidence obtained by abuse of detainees overseas may be admissible in a British court, so long as UK agents do not participate in or solicit it. Ms Manningham-Buller's comments, seen by Channel 4 News, are contained in a statement to law lords hearing an appeal by 10 terror suspects who argue that evidence from torture overseas should not be used in the Home Office's attempt to deport them. A Home Office spokesman said it would not comment on the case. -------- POLITICS -------- voting Fuel Cells to Power U.S. Marine Camp Pendleton Quarters, Mess DANBURY, Connecticut, October 21, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2005/2005-10-21-09.asp#anchor5 FuelCell Energy, Inc. a manufacturer of commercial and industrial clean power plants, has sold two stationary fuel cells to the U.S. Marines for electricity at U.S. Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, in California. "The fuel cell power plant provides an ultra-clean source of reliable power and complements the base's existing onsite generation capability," said Jeff Allen, Base Energy Manager. Fuel cells produce base load electricity allowing control over reliability and emissions and economics of power generation. Emerging state, federal and international regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consider fuel cell power plants in the same environmentally friendly category as wind and solar energy sources. And fuel cells run 24 hours a day and can be installed in places where wind turbines or solar panels often cannot. "The operation is expected to save us money over our previous power purchasing cost, while increasing energy security at the base, and is consistent with our environmental objective to integrate natural resource management with training and mission support requirements," Allen said. Two 250 kilowatt units will provide base load electricity and heat energy for a Bachelor Enlisted Quarters that houses over 200 Marines and a Mess Hall that serves over 400 personnel daily at Camp Pendleton. FuelCell Energy's distribution partner LOGANEnergy will serve as prime contractor overseeing installation and operation of the Direct FuelCell power plants and will also subcontract maintenance services to FuelCell Energy. The power plant is scheduled to be up and running in late calendar year 2006. Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton prides itself on being "proactive in energy conservation and energy efficiency." This year the Base won its second consecutive Presidential & Secretary of the Navy Energy Award. Allen and his team of resource efficiency managers Randy Monohan and Tim O'Hara have been supportive advocates for the fuel cells to demonstrate the emerging technology and its benefits. Camp Pendleton conducts training for active and reserve military units from all branches of the armed services, as well as for personnel from national, state and local agencies. The U.S. Navy says training programs at Camp Pendleton take place in an area inhabited by 400 species of mammals and birds, bordering the California coast for 17 miles. The federal government will have the opportunity to purchase two additional units and raise the fuel cell capacity on the base to one megawatt. The fuel cell installation may also be eligible to receive up to $1.25 million from the State of California Self Generation Incentive Program. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy -------- -------- energy -------- -------- OTHER -------- environment -------- -------- genetics -------- -------- health -------- -------- imf / world bank / wto (economics) -------- poverty -------- ACTIVISTS -------- --------