NucNews - November 24, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- africa Zimbabwe: Nuke club new member From: "MichaelK." Date: Thu Nov 24, 2005 0:28am National Radio translated Zimbabwean president’s speech in which was stated that Uranium deposits were found in the country. “Uranium is being used to a multitude of tasks. Bombs are being made of – such as those thrown on Hiroshima and Nagasaki”- Mr. R.Mugabe had remained. However, he said that Zimbabwean Uranium ought to be used in energy purposes only. Not all listeners had trusted this promise. ---- SA Cabinet lays out ideas for creating jobs November 24, 2005 By Lynda Loxton Business Report & Independent Online http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3007606 Cape Town - The cabinet yesterday focused on the expanded role that the private sector could play in creating jobs for the youth, and potential jobs in the energy sector. The executive was particularly interested in how youth development programmes could take advantage of a number of short- and long-term opportunities, it said in a statement. These included various human resource development initiatives, the expanded public works programme, the development of small, medium and micro enterprises, business process outsourcing, minerals beneficiation, co-operatives and the 2010 soccer World Cup. "It was agreed that [the] government and the private sector should be encouraged to make use of the jobs and opportunities database for the recruitment of unemployed graduates," it added. "Taking into account the growth initiative, the national youth policy framework will be reviewed and so will the impact of the current array of youth development institutions." It also approved in principle a job creation strategy involving energy crops and biofuels with the establishment of a special task team to "bring together public and private institutions, including science councils. "The strategy, which will ensure reduced dependence on imported fuels, also has great potential to create jobs and bring on board small-scale farmers. It was agreed that specific time frames for implementation should be finalised in due course." Government spokesperson Joel Netshitenzhe said all these concepts were still in their very early stages of development and full details would only emerge later as part of the accelerated and shared growth initiative. There has been much speculation about a renewed focus on using crops such as sugar cane and maize to produce ethanol as a fuel additive to make oil imports last longer. Synthetic liquid fuels from coal and natural gas are already being used for this purpose. The cabinet also approved a nuclear waste management policy and strategy. This included the creation of a national committee on radioactive waste management, which would work with the National Nuclear Regulator. The government's plans to produce more nuclear power with pebble bed modular reactors has created alarm in some circles and increased the need for better supervision of radioactive waste. -------- britain Drift to Nuclear Power Angers UK Environmentalists Story by Jeremy Lovell REUTERS UK: November 24, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33637/newsDate/24-Nov-2005/story.htm LONDON - British environmentalists expressed outrage on Wednesday at signs the government is moving towards approving a new generation of nuclear power stations. The government's chief scientist has said the need for the new reactors to replace the country's ageing nuclear plants was self-evident and Prime Minister Tony Blair has signalled he is moving in the same direction. "Blair seems to have fallen for the nuclear industry's propaganda campaign," Friends of the Earth director Tony Juniper told Reuters. "But it is the wrong decision. Nuclear is unsafe, the technology untested and in any case far too expensive." All but one of Britain's nuclear stations will close by 2023. Without new ones, nuclear power will provide four percent of Britain's electricity by 2010, down from 21 percent now. The government is being driven by the Kyoto treaty to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 12.5 percent below 1990 levels over the next seven years. It classifies nuclear as emission free. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmanent disputes this, saying extraction and refining of uranium produce carbon emissions. "It is not the answer to Britain's energy needs and is not a solution to global warming," it said. Although Blair's office has denied that he has taken any decision, a government source told Reuters he had become a nuclear convert but the cabinet was divided on the issue. The key lies with the Treasury which would have to approve the huge government subsidies, in capital investment or guaranteed prices, and finance minister Gordon Brown. He is expected to take over from Blair before the next election, due in 2010 at the latest. Brown has not made any recent public statements about his views on nuclear power. NO PUBLIC MONEY Pressure to review the country's energy policy is coming from the convergence of several factors: booming oil prices, global warming caused by burning fossil fuels, an increased emphasis on the security of energy supply and the need to decide soon about whether to replace existing nuclear plants. The government insisted on Wednesday that if the decision were taken to go nuclear it would not involve any public money. "There is no expectation of taxpayers' money being thrown into this ... It's down to the private sector," Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson told a parliamentary committee. But potential investors have made it clear they will not commit the money without some form of government guarantees. Juniper said new nuclear plants would only cut greenhouse gas emissions by 8 percent because electricity generation accounted for only a third of carbon dioxide output -- with much of the remainder coming from road and air transport. "Energy efficiency and renewables together could have a far bigger impact," he said. Environment Agency Chairman John Harman expressed doubts about the economics while environmentalists said there was no guaranteed method of dealing safely with deadly nuclear waste. "I still don't believe the rise in fuel costs is enough to float nuclear off the economic rocks," he told Reuters. Officials say Blair will announce within two weeks a full-scale review of Britain's future energy needs to be completed in 2006, after which a final decision will be taken. "It is unsafe, uneconomic and unnecessary," Andrew Lee, head of campaigns at conservation group WWF, told Reuters. "From our point of view, there is no surer way of killing off renewables than opting for nuclear." (Additional reporting by Mike Peacock) -------- business Nordion solves supply problem Company will get cobalt-60 from Russian reactor The Ottawa Citizen Published: Thursday, November 24, 2005 http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/business/story.html?id=47edb920-6449-4028-994d-29b1d990babf MDS Nordion has a new deal to make medical isotopes with material from a Russian nuclear reactor. The Ottawa company announced a long-term supply deal with Rosenergoatom, the state operator of 10 Russian power plants, for cobalt-60 used in sterilizing medical devices and preventing infection. Nordion has struggled for years to get enough raw materials to meet more than half the world's need for medical isotopes. The shortages of supplies have hurt sales in the past. Sales in the past quarter fell two per cent to $79 million because of late deliveries of new cobalt. Nordion had previously disclosed a $24-million, 13-year contract with an unidentified Russian supplier. Nordion said ensuring the supply of cobalt-60 is important because it supports 45 per cent of medical sterilization activity around the world. Nordion said that unlike some reactors, the design of the Leningrad nuclear power plant's reactors allows the cobalt-60 to be removed while the reactor is operating -- allowing it to meet market demand quicker. "Hundreds of millions of cubic feet of medical products are sterilized every year, demonstrating the important role cobalt-60 plays in protecting patients from harmful microorganisms," said Evgeny Gorbunov, head of radiation technologies at Rosenergoatom's Leningrad plant. Also yesterday, MDS Inc., the Toronto parent, said it sold its 49-per-cent stake in Source Medical Corp., a distributor of instruments and gloves, to Cardinal Health Inc. for $79 million. Cardinal now owns all of Source, the second-biggest Canadian medical distributor behind McKesson. MDS is shedding excess businesses to refocus the company. MDS shares fell one per cent to $19.55 yesterday on the Toronto Stock Exchange. -------- depleted uranium European parliament moratorium on uranium weapons From: davey garland Date: Thu Nov 24, 2005 7:58am On Nov. 17, the European Parliament issued for the third time a call for a moratorium on the use of so-called "depleted” uranium munitions. The resolution regarding depleted uranium is part of an 11-page document entitled, “Texts adopted by European Parliament, on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; A role for the European Parliament” The Resolution's section No. 82 says the EP, “Reiterates its call for a moratorium -- with a view to the introduction of a total ban -- on the use of so-called ‘depleted uranium munitions.’” The legal basis for the moratorium was detailed early in the document, which stated that “all European Union Member States are Parties to the major multilateral agreements that make up the non-proliferation regime, namely the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).” The Resolution made pointed mention of the fact that, “two Member States, the UK and France, are nuclear-weapon states as defined in the NPT, and that U.S. tactical weapons are stationed on the territories of many more Member States: Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Greece, the Netherlands and Belgium and states applying for EU membership, Turkey in particular.” On Jan. 17, 2001 the European Parliament resolved, among other things, to “[Call] on the Member States that are also NATO members to propose that a moratorium be placed on the use of depleted uranium weapons in accordance with the precautionary principle as defined in the Council resolution adopted at the European Council meeting in Nice and the European Parliament's resolution on the subject.” Likewise on Feb. 13, 2003, the EP called on its executive body the European Council, “to support independent and thorough investigations into the possible harmful effects of the use of depleted uranium ammunition (and other types of uranium warheads) in military operations in areas such as the Balkans, Afghanistan and other regions; [especially] on military personnel serving in affected areas and the effects on civilians and their land; [and called] for the results of these investigations to be presented to Parliament … The 2003 resolution further called for “Member States -- in order to play their leadership role in full -- to immediately implement a moratorium on the further use of cluster ammunition and depleted uranium ammunition (and other uranium warheads), pending the conclusions of a comprehensive study of the requirements of international humanitarian law …” SEE: Nov. 17, 2005: http://www.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade3?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2005-0439+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&L=EN&LEVEL=0&NAV=S&LSTDOC=Y&LSTDOC=N Feb. 13, 2003 http://www.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade3?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P5-TA-2003-0062+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&L=EN&LEVEL=2&NAV=S&LSTDOC=Y&LSTDOC=N -------- iran Iran preparing to start nuclear enrichment-diplomats Thu Nov 24, 2005 By Louis Charbonneau and Mark Heinrich VIENNA (Reuters) http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=10395584 Iran is pushing ahead with plans to enrich uranium in defiance of international pressure to give up sensitive nuclear technology to ease fears it is seeking a nuclear bomb, diplomats and intelligence sources say. Such plans could jeopardize a Russian attempt to head off a confrontation over Iran, through a compromise proposal under which Tehran would maintain a civilian nuclear program but transfer enrichment to Russia under a joint venture. Enrichment is the most sensitive stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. It can be used to make fuel for bombs or power plants. "I think they want to do it soon," a European diplomat told Reuters. "The million-dollar question is when." Diplomats and intelligence officials, speaking on the sidelines of a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) this week, said Iran was preparing to start enrichment at its underground plant in Natanz. The United States and other Western countries say Natanz is at the heart of a covert nuclear weapons program, and have threatened to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions. Iran says its nuclear program is purely for generating electricity. A 4-page confidential intelligence report given to Reuters cited a "senior Iranian foreign ministry source" as saying that on October 24 the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, called an emergency meeting of current and former members of Iran's nuclear negotiating team. "One of the cardinal issues raised at the meeting was the timing for activating the centrifuge site at Natanz. The former and current negotiating teams weighed the various options for the timing of the Natanz operation," the report said. The report, given to Reuters by a diplomat on condition of anonymity, did not say when work at Natanz would start. Participants at the meeting discussed the technical measures needed to be taken before the plant went on line and what to do once the move had been announced, the report said. "They are not going to do this secretly," the diplomat said. "They will do it openly as they did with Isfahan." "SHAKY LEGAL GROUNDS" Iran resumed conversion of uranium ore at its Isfahan plant in August, leading to the collapse of talks with France, Germany and Britain, the so-called EU3, who had been trying to convince Tehran to give up all sensitive nuclear technology. Under the compromise proposed by Russia, Iran would be allowed to continue to process uranium ore at Isfahan but ship the gas produced there to Russia for enrichment. The Natanz plant would remain mothballed. The proposal had won backing from the United States, and diplomats had said talks could resume in December with the EU3 if Iran were ready to discuss the Russian proposal. The IAEA board agreed on Thursday it was better to explore Russia's compromise plan than to vote on referring Tehran to the U.N. Security Council. However, western nations on the IAEA board would be likely to push for an immediate referral to the Council if Iran moved openly toward enriching uranium. Such a referral would likely be opposed by Russia, China and most developing countries. Officials in Tehran were not immediately available for comment and Iranian officials in Vienna did not return calls. Iran however has repeatedly said it has a sovereign right to a full civilian domestic nuclear program, including enrichment. More than half a dozen diplomats at the IAEA interviewed by Reuters said the intelligence report was credible. The EU and Washington say that since Iran hid its nuclear program for many years, it needs to give up all sensitive nuclear technology to prove it is not seeking atomic bombs. But a senior diplomat close to the IAEA said that the demand that Iran give up enrichment "is on very shaky legal grounds." "As far as we can tell, the Iranians are not willing to give up enrichment," he told Reuters. "It's a legal activity as long as it's been declared and we can't just go in there and tell Iran not to do that. We don't hold many cards." Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright, who heads the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security think-tank, said it was likely Iran would start work at Natanz to see how Western powers reacted. "I don't see a Natanz start-up as inevitable, that we've reached the point of no return. At the same time, Iran will test the will of the international community," he said. A senior diplomat close to the IAEA said Iran appeared determined to start a small enrichment centrifuge cascade -- a group of machines that purify uranium by spinning at supersonic speeds -- and would probably begin with 168 centrifuges. Such a small cascade would take many years to produce enough fuel for a bomb. But it would enable the Iranians to begin mastering the technology. One senior European diplomat said few were optimistic that Iran would accept the Russian proposal. "The U.S. is just waiting for the Russian proposal to fail and then they'll go to the Security Council," he said. ---- Iran: Our A-bomb data widely available on Internet 24 Nov 2005 Source: Reuters By Louis Charbonneau and Francois Murphy http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L24671726.htm VIENNA, Nov 24 (Reuters) - Iran attempted to play down the importance of information it received from the black market on making the core of a nuclear weapon and said on Thursday the material was freely available on the Internet. Last week the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in a report that Iran had handed over several pages related to the production of key components of a nuclear weapon. The United States and European Union said the pages showed Iran's atomic ambitions may include a nuclear arsenal but Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Mohammad Mehdi Akhunzadeh, denied this. "The information contained in one-and-a-half pages is simple and non-sophisticated information which could be found in (public) literature and on the Internet," Akhunzadeh told a meeting of the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors. He said the documents were "incomplete" and argued that handing the documents to the IAEA was in itself "a clear indication of Iran's full transparency with the IAEA." But Western diplomats and analysts disagreed. "The Iranian explanation is laughable and not credible. It's classified information. It's about metallurgy and how to machine uranium successfully into spheres for a nuclear weapon," William Peden, a Greenpeace nuclear analyst, told Reuters. A European diplomat pointed out that the Internet did not even exist at the time Iran got the documents. Gregory Schulte, U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, told reporters: "This is not information Iran downloaded from the Internet. This is information that they obtained, according to the IAEA, from a nuclear trafficking network that has provided a nuclear weapons design to at least one other country (Libya)." Iran says it received the documents from an illicit procurement network linked to disgraced Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, whose agents met with Iranian officials in 1987 while the Iran-Iraq war was raging. Tehran says it wants only civilian energy from its nuclear development programme. It acknowledges hiding potentially weapons-related technology from U.N. inspectors for 18 years until 2003 but says it was given these particular documents without having requested them and did nothing with them. A European diplomat questioned Iran's claim to transparency and said Iran had claimed for months it had received only a one-page offer after the 1987 meeting with agents of Khan before it suddenly said it had found a large box of documents. ---- Keep your enemy closer The best way to know the full extent of Iran's nuclear doings is to offer it help. By Jack Boureston and Charles D. Ferguson November/December 2005 pp. 25, 76 (vol. 61, no. 6) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=nd05boureston It now appears a foregone conclusion that Iran will continue its nuclear program no matter what the United States and the European Union offer to stop it. Short of a U.N. Security Council resolution--which is unlikely, given the reluctance of veto-wielding nations such as China and Russia to impose sanctions--Israel or the United States might seek to end the Islamic Republic's nuclear program through force. But bombing nuclear facilities or launching a preventive war runs the risk of futility because Iran has hardened and dispersed its nuclear complex. Moreover, military action may spark reprisal by Iranian-backed jihadist groups at a time when the U.S. military is already stretched to the breaking point by the insurgency in Iraq. In pursuing a civilian nuclear program, Iran has international law on its side. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty gives signatories "the inalienable right" to peaceful nuclear technologies contingent on not making nuclear explosives. Although Iran has been less than forthcoming about many of its nuclear activities, inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency have not revealed evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Despite the U.S. government's fears, the president's "WMD Commission" concluded that U.S. intelligence knows "disturbingly little" about Iran. And in August, the Washington Post reported that a new U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) projects that Iran is about 10 years from having the capability of making nuclear weapons--double the time predicted by earlier estimates. The new NIE, if correct, provides more time for active engagement. The United States and other international partners should seize the opportunity to work closely with Tehran to ensure that its nuclear program complies with the most rigorous safeguards while preserving its right to perform peaceful nuclear activities. Close involvement also can serve as an important source of data on Iranian nuclear activities and can act as a reality check on U.S. intelligence community estimates. Such collaboration would open interesting avenues to shape the development of Iran's nuclear program in a positive manner. In the near term, the United States could work with the nuclear industry to provide a steady supply of fresh fuel to Iran through direct contracts with individual companies or through a multinational consortium. (Such a "fuel bank" was recently proposed at an international conference in Moscow.) In parallel to the provision of guaranteed fresh fuel as needed, Iran would implement part of its own proposed agreement with the European Union to restrict the number of enrichment centrifuges it operates for research purposes. A key to successful implementation, however, is to enhance the monitoring of Iranian enrichment facilities. Unfortunately, the United States is ill-prepared for this task, since efforts to improve safeguards technologies have languished. Safeguards techniques include video surveillance to monitor daily activities at a nuclear facility, satellite imagery analysis to assess movements to and from a country's nuclear sites, and environmental sampling to determine what types of nuclear materials are present at a facility. In a May report titled "Nuclear Power and Proliferation Resistance: Securing Benefits, Limiting Risk," the American Physical Society found that less than $5 million was devoted to such research and development in fiscal 2005. No technology is proliferation-proof, but more can be done to make nuclear technology proliferation-resistant. To that end, the American Physical Society recommends that the United States "expand efforts in international technical collaborations" with an eye toward "designing safeguards directly into critical nuclear systems." Probably the most effective built-in safeguards technologies are "use-control" systems that would automatically shut down a facility if a violation occurs. (For example, a use-control system could stop operation of a uranium enrichment plant if highly enriched, bomb-usable uranium is produced.) Iran's nuclear program could be a valuable test bed for such enhanced safeguards. And increased transparency would yield important diplomatic benefits by minimizing the distrust that currently characterizes Tehran's relationship with the United States and other countries. Over the long term, if confidence builds that Iran is fully complying with more rigorous safeguards--and if Iran's nuclear energy needs continue to grow--the United States and its international partners can assist Iran with developing next-generation fuel cycles that have built-in proliferation-resistant technologies. One such option would be to spike low-enriched uranium hexafluoride with thorium. If the spiked material is introduced into an enrichment plant to make highly enriched uranium, as opposed to the low-enriched uranium used for nuclear fuel, the presence of radioactive thorium would sound an alarm. To make all this happen, the nuclear industry has to play an essential role. Some industry officials are gradually coming around to the concept that proliferation is bad for business because a well-publicized diversion of commercial nuclear technology into a military program would likely hurt sales. However, the industry has yet to make proliferation-resistance a top priority in all new fuel-cycle technologies under development. Critics would likely label our proposal as appeasement. Rather than being starry-eyed Neville Chamberlains proclaiming nuclear "peace in our time" with Iran, we would hinge implementation of our initiative on Iran agreeing to rigorous, continuous monitoring of their nuclear program through active involvement with the United States and the European Union. Only by keeping our enemy closer can we increase confidence that Iran is living up to its commitments. ---- Back to Normal IAEA Unlikely to Refer Iran to Security Council Arms Control Today, November 24, 2005 Paul Kerr http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_11/NOV-Iran.asp?print On Nov. 24, following an anticipated report from Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors is set to evaluate Iran’s cooperation with a Sept. 24 resolution that found Tehran in “non-compliance” with its agency safeguards agreement. Although Iran seems unlikely to comply with all of the resolution’s demands, there seems to be little chance that the board will refer the matter to the UN Security Council. Under the IAEA statute, the board is required to notify the Security Council if a state-party to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) is found in noncompliance with its agency safeguards agreement. Such agreements allow the agency to monitor NPT states-parties’ declared civilian nuclear activities to ensure that they are not diverted to military purposes. However, the September resolution does not specify when or under what circumstances such a referral will take place. Iran violated its safeguards agreement by conducting clandestine work on several nuclear programs and has yet to resolve a number of questions, especially with regard to its gas centrifuge-based uranium-enrichment program. (See ACT, October 2005.) Uranium enrichment can produce both fuel for civilian nuclear reactors or fissile material for nuclear weapons. IAEA board decisions are usually made by consensus, but a Department of State official told Arms Control Today Oct. 17 that Washington anticipates that the board would have to vote on any future referral decision because of the contentious nature of the Iran dispute. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph told an academic audience Oct. 21 that, after receiving such a referral, the council could seek to “reinforce” the IAEA’s efforts, perhaps by calling on Iran to cooperate with the agency and giving the IAEA “new, needed authority to investigate all Iranian weaponization efforts.” Still, a State Department source told Arms Control Today Oct. 28 that Iran will likely avoid Security Council referral at this month’s board meeting by providing the IAEA with “at least superficial cooperation.” The official would not describe the extent of Iran’s cooperation, but Reuters and the Associated Press reported Oct. 20 that Iran gave the IAEA some documents and allowed agency inspectors to interview a government official. The September resolution calls on Iran to “implement transparency measures,” such as providing IAEA inspectors with procurement documents and access to certain Iranian officials. These steps are not required by Iran’s safeguards agreement, but the agency believes them necessary for developing a complete history of Iran’s nuclear efforts. Stalled Diplomacy, Possible Compromises The September resolution also urges Iran to suspend operating its uranium-conversion facility near Isfahan and resume talks with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The two sides had been engaged in negotiations since November 2004 to resolve concerns about Tehran’s nuclear program. Iran agreed at that time to suspend operations at the Isfahan facility for the duration of the negotiations, but the talks broke down when Iran restarted the facility in August. Tehran has said that it is willing to return to the bargaining table but will not suspend the facility’s operation. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Oct. 23 that Iran would continue its nuclear efforts until its “fuel cycle becomes operational.” Uranium-conversion facilities convert lightly processed uranium ore into several uranium compounds, including uranium hexafluoride, which is the feedstock for gas centrifuges. Iran is permitted to operate uranium-enrichment facilities under IAEA safeguards, but both the United States and the Europeans are concerned that Iranian expertise gained from operating enrichment facilities will support a nuclear weapons program. The Europeans still want Iran to suspend conversion operations and respond to their August proposal, which laid out incentives aimed at persuading Iran to cease its enrichment program permanently. (See ACT, September 2005.) But the State Department official told Arms Control Today that the Europeans are now exploring solutions that would allow Tehran to keep a limited uranium-conversion capability, perhaps by permitting Iran to produce some uranium compounds but not uranium hexafluoride. A Western diplomat asked about this possible compromise said that the Europeans’ formal position is that Iran should give up its nuclear fuel programs. But a “credible” proposal allowing Iran to retain a residual conversion capability would not be “ruled out automatically,” the diplomat admitted. In an effort to strengthen ongoing multilateral diplomacy, the United States and Europeans have increasingly focused on efforts to persuade Russia, who currently opposes a Security Council referral, to change its position. As a permanent member of that body, Russia can veto any Security Council action. Moscow is also widely believed to have considerable influence on Tehran. Russia and China—another veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council—abstained from voting for the September resolution. Asked about Chinese opposition to a council referral, the State Department official indicated that U.S. officials believe Beijing would moderate its position if Russia does so. At a press conference with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters Oct. 15 that the IAEA should “do everything possible” to resolve concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program before referring the matter to the Security Council. But he also emphasized “the necessity” for Tehran to cooperate with the IAEA. The United States is encouraging Russia to propose creative solutions to facilitate the Europeans’ diplomacy, although there is no indication that Russia will join the talks. For example, Moscow has proposed that Iran share ownership of a uranium-enrichment plant located in Russia, the State Department official said. Designed to address Iran’s claim that it cannot rely on outside nuclear fuel suppliers, this proposal could be combined with Moscow’s months-old proposal to enrich Iranian uranium in Russia. It would also satisfy Washington’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, the official added. Lavrov mentioned the joint-ownership proposal to his Iranian counterpart during a recent meeting, and Moscow is awaiting Iran’s reaction. Washington anticipates that Iran will reject the offer, the State Department official said, but argued that such a decision would demonstrate Iran’s lack of interest in compromise and make Russia more likely to support the U.S. position. South Africa has also reportedly offered its own compromise that would allow Iran to convert South African uranium to uranium hexafluoride. The gas would then be sent back to the country. South African embassy and foreign ministry officials did not respond to requests for further details. The Western diplomat, however, said that no country has approached the Europeans with a proposal. In fact, no government is performing an intermediary role between the two sides, the diplomat said. Iran Adrift? Tehran’s more aggressive diplomatic stance since Ahmadinejad’s June election has drawn criticism from some prominent Iranian figures, such as former presidential candidate and current head of Iran’s Expediency Council, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who have called for a more moderate approach. But, whether Iran’s policies will change remains unclear. Iran had shown signs of moderation by its apparent cooperation with the IAEA and its failure to carry out recent threats to resume work on its other enrichment-related facilities. However, Ahmadinejad’s Oct. 26 call for the destruction of Israel provoked widespread international condemnation and cast further doubt on Tehran’s ability and desire to conduct cooperative diplomacy. Courting the NAM To try to win greater support for its preferred hard-line position on Iran at the IAEA, Washington has also lately made an effort to reach out to developing countries, such as those belonging to the Nonaligned Movement (NAM). These efforts, such as a September statement from U.S. Ambassador Gregory Schulte that emphasized U.S. support for peaceful nuclear energy, are meant to counter Iran’s efforts to gain support among developing countries. Iran has portrayed U.S. and European nuclear diplomacy as an attempt to deny such countries access to peaceful nuclear technology. NAM countries have generally shown some sympathy to Iran at past board meetings and frequently display an ambivalence regarding nonproliferation efforts in general. Although these governments express concern about the spread of nuclear weapons, they also fault the NPT nuclear-weapon states, such as the United States, for lagging in their disarmament commitments under the treaty. The State Department official and the Western diplomat differed as to the extent to which Iran’s argument has been effective. Indeed, the September vote tally reflects a degree of disunity within the NAM countries. All told, 22 board members voted for the September resolution, with 12 abstentions and Venezuela casting the only negative vote. Aside from Venezuela, all NAM board members either supported the resolution or abstained from voting. But the board has subsequently added some new members less favorable to the United States: Belarus, Cuba and Syria. Demonstrating the situation’s complexity, U.S. officials are still lobbying India to support a future Security Council referral. New Delhi voted for the September resolution, but issued a statement later that day which disputed the resolution’s key noncompliance finding. A source from NAM chair Malaysia told Arms Control Today Oct. 19 that the NAM wants Iran to resolve its outstanding issues with the IAEA but is concerned that removing the issue from the agency at this time would be “counterproductive” and could damage the IAEA’s integrity. However, the source indicated that the NAM could eventually support a Security Council referral if Iran persists in its failure to cooperate fully with the agency. Apparently referring to Washington’s disregard for UN weapons inspectors’ findings prior to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the source emphasized that the NAM would base its Iran assessments on reports from the IAEA rather than an “individual country.” IAEA Iran Vote Tally Paul Kerr Below is how the then-members of the IAEA Board of Governors voted on a Sept. 24 resolution that said Iran was in “non-compliance” with its safeguards agreement. The resolution was adopted with 22 board members voting for it, 1 against, and 12 abstaining. Some of the board members have subsequently changed. For Resolution Argentina Australia Belgium Canada Ecuador France Germany Ghana Hungary India Italy Japan Republic of Korea Netherlands Peru Poland Portugal Singapore Slovakia Sweden United Kingdom and Northern Ireland United States Against Resolution Venezuela Abstaining Algeria Brazil China Mexico Nigeria Pakistan Russian Federation South Africa Sri Lanka Tunisia Vietnam Yemen Arms Control Association, 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 620 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 463-8270 | Fax: (202) 463-8273 ---- US reveals details of Iran's nuclear ambition By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor (Filed: 24/11/2005) UK Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/24/wiran24.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/11/24/ixworld.html Britain and key European allies are using intelligence briefings to convince major powers that Iran is trying to develop nuclear warheads for its Shahab-3 missiles. The Shahab 3, displayed at a Teheran military parade in September with slogans such as "We will crush America under our feet", has a range of at least 810 miles and is capable of reaching Israel, Turkey, Russia and India. Aware of the damage done by Downing Street's dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be non-existent, European governments have been careful not to go public with the information. But in private sessions ahead of today's meeting of the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, European officials are stressing they believe US intelligence provides strong evidence of Teheran's determination to build an atomic bomb. US officials have in recent months shared with experts from the IAEA and other countries classified details of tens of thousands of pages of technical information recovered from a stolen Iranian laptop. The documents, written in Farsi and obtained last year, are said to reveal experiments with warhead designs characteristic of nuclear devices. But several countries are treating any US intelligence claim with suspicion, prompting Britain, France and Germany - the so-called EU-3 countries that have led the nuclear negotiations with Iran - to join the US lobbying effort. "The Europeans' assessment is very close to that of the Americans," said a western source. "They have gone through all the possibilities - conventional, chemical or biological weapons. But the designs only make sense if they are intended for a nuclear warhead." According to leaks in US papers, the documents include telltale details such as a sphere of detonators of conventional explosives, used to compress fissile material to trigger a nuclear reaction. Iran insists that it wants to build nuclear reactors to generate electricity. But the IAEA says that Iran has failed to co-operate fully with its inspectors after they discovered in 2003 that Iran had lied about its activities. Until now attention has focused on Iran's uranium enrichment programme, supposedly intended to produce nuclear fuel. But more recent evidence appears to point to Iran's interest in weapons design. In its latest report, the IAEA revealed that Iran had surrendered a document on how to cast uranium into hemispheres. Iran said the document was "unsolicited", and had been included with other technical material bought from the nuclear black market. European officials say the revelation was one of several "own goals" by an increasingly radical Iranian regime. Its hardline new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, provoked international outrage last month after declaring that Israel "should be wiped off the map". The European briefings are part of a diplomatic campaign to draw influential members of the IAEA board - such as Russia, China, India and South Africa - into a more united front to curb Iran's nuclear programme. In September, their opposition stopped western countries from pushing the IAEA board to report Iran to the Security Council for possible sanctions. Instead, the board voted on a resolution declaring Iran to be in "non compliance" with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. -------- missile defense BMD Focus: Report blasts BMD program By MARTIN SIEFF UPI Senior News Analyst, November 24, 2005 http://tinyurl.com/7nv8x http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051122-041055-6328r WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 (UPI) -- Is Ballistic Missile Defense making unprecedented strides, or is it fizzling disastrously? The news is daily filled with items that point either way. However, a new report from the New York-based World Peace Institute pulls no punches in arguing that the cup is empty, not full. "Over $130 billion has been spent on missile defense since President Reagan gave his 1983 'Star Wars' speech. (Yet) despite all this money and effort, the Pentagon has yet to produce a single device capable of reliably intercepting a long-range ballistic missile," the report says. The Missile Defense Agency, enthusiastically backed by President George W. Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his neo-conservative top civilian echelon in the Pentagon, has been driving ahead to deploy a chain of ground-based ABM interceptors around Fort Greely, Alaska, as fast as it could. But the report was devastating in its assessment of that program's lack of credibility. "The ground-based midcourse system (GMD), which has received the bulk of missile defense funding in recent years, has failed in its last three tests, including two in which the interceptor missile was unable to leave its silo," the report said. "Independent experts have demonstrated that the current system is incapable of picking out an incoming warhead from an array of simple decoys, rendering it unreliable and ultimately unworkable." Other missile defense technologies, such as "boost phase" defenses whose aim would be to hit an enemy missile shortly after it leaves its silo, many experts say, may ultimately prove to be far more effective. But even these, the WPI report cautions, "are also plagued with daunting technical challenges that may not be solvable, according to a report from the American Physical Society." The report accuses the Bush administration of pouring multiple billions of dollars into poorly assessed, inadequately supervised and tested programs, where sloppy direction and oversight magnifies the likelihood of failure. "Annual missile defense budgets increased by more than 80 percent in the first two years of the Bush administration, from $4.2 billion per year to $7.7 billion per year," it said. "Budgets have continued to increase, to $8.8 billion in the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2006, down from $9.9 billion in FY 2005. The current missile defense budget is more than double what it was in the final year of the Clinton administration." Yet, the report continues, "as budgets have increased, scrutiny of the missile program has diminished. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a long-time ally of the missile defense lobby, has eliminated basic reports on the costs and performance of missile defense technology, while classifying key details that Congress and the public need to assess the feasibility of the program." "Information on the number and character of decoys used in a given test is no longer provided, making it impossible to determine whether tests are being conducted under anything even remotely resembling real world conditions," the report says. If the American people have not received any effective protection from nuclear ballistic missile attack so far from the BMD program, nor any likelihood of doing so in the foreseeable future, the main defense contracting corporations have done very well out of it indeed, the report says. "The acceleration of missile defense spending has been especially lucrative for top missile defense contractors Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman," it says. "Boeing's missile defense contracts more than doubled from 2001 to 2004, from $1.4 billion to $2.9 billion. Lockheed Martin's awards also increased more than 100 percent, from $557 million in 2001 to $1.2 billion in 2004. Raytheon's contracts nearly tripled, from $225 million to $647 million; and Northrop Grumman's awards went up more than fivefold, from $104 million to $534 million. More than 77 percent of all missile defense prime contract awards from 2001 to 2004 went to just these four firms." The report acknowledges that space-based weapons are now a practical and physical reality. "The concept of placing weapons in space -- to destroy other country's satellites, bolster missile defense efforts, or attack targets on earth -- has gone well beyond the "what if" stage into research and development of actual systems," it says. "Although many of these programs are shrouded in secrecy, a rough estimate is that new space weapons initiatives receive approximately $300 million to $500 million per year, a small fraction of the roughly $22 billion the U.S. spends annually on military space activities. Many of the same corporate players that are involved in missile defense are also in on the ground floor of space weapons projects." The report concludes that "the best hope of developing a practical military space policy that is not distorted by special interests is to reduce secrecy and increase transparency in these programs, so that a full public debate can occur before the fateful step of placing weapons in space is decided upon." -------- security Nuclear plants safe? Claim is unsound By CYNTHIA McKINNEY Published on: 11/24/05 Atlanta Journal Constitution http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1105/24edmckinney.html Just as U.S. Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) was telling Georgians in a Nov. 14 Atlanta Journal-Constitution opinion column that "nuclear power plants have a sound safety record," Southern Co.'s Edwin I. Hatch nuclear plant along the Altamaha River near Baxley was reporting the loss of 68 inches of highly irradiated nuclear fuel. As highly radioactive waste, this irradiated or "spent" nuclear fuel is millions of times more radioactive than new fuel. Hatch says the missing fuel is either at the bottom of the fuel pool or it was mistakenly shipped out with radioactive scrap regularly collected by the filters. The problem? There is no facility in the United States licensed to accept commercial irradiated reactor fuel. The containers that it was shipped out in are said to be safe for hundreds of years. The half life of irradiated nuclear fuel exceeds a million years. You do the math. Hatch's safety record is hardly "sound." In 1984, cracks in the containment system were discovered. Hatch is also on record for one of the largest releases of radioactive water into our environment. In 1986, human error and equipment failure led to the release of 84,000 gallons of radioactive water from Hatch into a wetlands area on plant property, only a few hundred yards from the Altamaha. Both the Hatch and Vogtle plants have had ongoing worker safety violations. But never mind that, says Frist. Nuclear power is safe. Is it safe from terrorist attack? Not according to the FBI director who testified to Congress in February. In 1986, a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission testified to Congress that he expected a core meltdown to happen within 20 years. It sounds as if we could be overdue. Accidents? Heck, says Frist, Three Mile Island was no big deal. And Chernobyl? According to Frist it only killed "scores of people and rendered about 20 square miles of land uninhabitable." Frist fails to say anything about the global fallout, which touched 3 billion people worldwide, or about how incidents of thyroid cancer in neighboring Belarus are 100 times higher than before the accident. "Chernobyl heart" is a condition found in children from the region who develop holes in their hearts and die without surgery. Thousands of children each year are on the waiting lists, but only a few hundred receive treatment. Anyone who raises concerns about nuclear power safety gets branded as a fearmonger. Were the writers at the Times-Picayune labeled that when as early as 1998 they predicted that a Category 3 hurricane could breach the levees and flood New Orleans? But even when the "fearmongers" turn out to be right, as they did in Louisiana, why should we worry? Haven't we all seen how swiftly and judiciously the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Homeland Security respond to catastrophe? Frist wants Georgia to embrace building nuclear reactors. I am told Frist is a doctor. What kind of doctor would tell Georgians that their nuclear plants have a "sound safety record" when the facts say otherwise? Only a spin doctor. U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney is a Democrat representing Georgia's 4th Congressional District. ---- Effects of 300Kt warhead Detonated Above Washington, D.C. From: Steven Starr Via: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign Date: Thu Nov 24, 2005 9:49pm This is a description of a nuclear weapon detonation which I created for the Mayors for Peace. Much of the information came from Lynn Eden's book, Whole World on Fire, and was used with her permission. I also have a graphic which illustrates the thermal effects of a 300 kT weapon over D.C., which I will not post because of the file size, but is available upon request. . Best wishes, Steven Starr The Effects of a 300 kiloton Nuclear Warhead Detonated Above Washington, D.C. If you live in a large city in the U.S., Russia, or any other nation possessing nuclear weapons, there is at least one nuclear warhead aimed at you. It patiently waits day and night for a computer to give it your address and send it on a 10 to 30 minute flight to incinerate you and your family. There are many thousands of strategic nuclear warheads kept constantly ready to turn the cities of the world into hurricanes of fire. This is a brief description of the effects which a single average sized strategic nuclear weapon would have if detonated above the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. (dozens of such weapons are probably targeted upon D.C. by Russia). The warhead has an explosive power of 300 kilotons (kT), equaling 600 million pounds of dynamite and would be detonated at an altitude of 1500 feet above its target. A 300 kT warhead would within a millionth of a second release 300 trillion calories of energy primarily in the form of intense light. The surrounding air would be superheated and create a rapidly expanding fireball. Almost all the air within and around the fireball would be compressed into a steeply fronted luminous blast wave of enormous extent and power. The fireball would extend more than a mile in diameter and at its center produce temperatures of over 200 million degrees Fahrenheit, about four to five times the temperature found at the center of the sun. This unearthly release of heat and energy would create an environment of unimaginable lethality, igniting extensive fires for many tens of square miles and producing a blast wave which would crush and tear apart any structures in its path. The blast wave would also increase the incidence and rate of firespread by exposing ignitable surfaces, releasing flammable materials and dispersing burning objects. At Pentagon City, a shopping and office complex 0.7 miles from ground zero at the Pentagon, light from the fireball would melt asphalt in the streets, burn paint off walls, and melt metal surfaces within a half second of detonation. The interior of vehicles in line of sight of the fireball would explode into flames. About one second later, the blast wave and 750 miles per hour (mph) winds would arrive and toss burning and disintegrating vehicles into the air like leaves in a wind. The blast wave could cave in buildings and would turn windows and furniture into missiles and shrapnel. The interiors of buildings that remained standing would, within minutes, be burning pyres of splintered walls, doors and other combustibles. Seconds after the passage of the blast wave, suction effects created in part by the rising fireball would reverse the winds, drawing them toward the detonation point at perhaps 50 - 70 mph. All the areas within 1.3 miles of the Pentagon (almost all of the Arlington National Cemetery, most of the Virginia Highlands and Addison Heights neighborhoods, and parts of Washington D.C. reaching to the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials) would experience more than 15 times the thermal energy found at the edge of the mass fire which destroyed Hiroshima. The fireball here would, for a moment, shine 5,000 times brighter than a desert sun at noon. Grass, vegetation, and leaves on tress would explode into flames, and the surface of the ground would explode into superheated dust. Flames and black smoke would spew out from all combustible materials illuminated by the fireball. The marble on the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials would crack, pop, and possibly evaporate. The light would melt the surface of the bronze statue of Jefferson. Birds in flight would drop from the sky in flames. People exposed to the light would be instantly cremated. Four seconds later the blast wave would arrive and collapse the Jefferson and Lincoln memorials. This would be followed by winds of 300-400 mph which combining with the blast wave would completely destroy wood-frame and residential brick buildings. Aluminum surfaces on the aircraft at the Reagan National Airport would melt and warp. Interior sections of the aircraft exposed to the fireball would burst into flame. Tires on the aircraft and any nearby vehicles would also catch fire. Within 3 miles of ground zero the clothing worn by people in direct line of sight of the fireball would burst into flames or melt, and areas of skin not covered by clothing would be scorched, charring flesh and causing third-degree burns. For many miles in all directions, any creature unfortunate enough to look into the fireball at the time of detonation would either be blinded or suffer permanent retinal damage. Only a few mass fires have occurred in human history; those created by British and American conventional incendiary weapons and the U.S. atomic bombs in World War II. The unique features of the mass fire - the simultaneous combustion of many fires over a large area, which causes a great volume of air to heat, rise, and suck in large amounts of fresh air at hurricane speeds from the periphery - fundamentally distinguish it from other fires in history (otherwise know as line fires, which can burn and spread for days, but were not simultaneously set over large areas). Fire environments created by mass fires are fundamentally more violent and destructive than fires of smaller scale, and they are far less affected by external weather conditions. Because their dynamics are dominated by the intense hydrodynamic flows generated by the vast releases of energy from combustion in an area of enormous size and the resulting rise of air over the fires zone, these fires are not substantially altered by seasonal and daily weather conditions. The 300kT detonation would create a mass fire with a radius of 3.5 miles in all but the most extreme weather conditions. Under a majority of weather conditions, there would be a mass fire ignited to a distance of just over 4.5 miles from the detonation. This gigantic fire would quickly increase in intensity and in minutes generate ground winds of hurricane force with average air temperatures well above the boiling point of water (212 degrees F). The fire would then burn everywhere at this intensity for three to six hours, producing a lethal environment over a total area of approximately 40 to 65 square miles - an area about 10 to 15 times larger than that incinerated by the 15 kT atomic bomb which destroyed Hiroshima. Even after the fires burned out, street pavement would be so hot that even tracked vehicles could not pass over it for days, and buried and unburned materials from collapsed buildings could burst into flames if exposed to air even weeks after the attack. Those who sought to flee through the streets would be burned alive by hurricane-force winds laden with flames and firebrands. Even those who sought shelter in the deepest subbasements of massive buildings would likely die from heat prostration, suffocation, or lack of water. There would be no escape. The fire would eliminate all life in the fire zone. The smoke and mushroom cloud, seething with radioactivity, would rise up to blot out the sun. Deadly fallout would contaminate hundreds of square miles downwind with radioactive poisons from the blast, dooming hundreds of thousands of humans and animals to a painful, vicious death from radiation sickness. Much of the land contaminated by the fallout would remain uninhabitable for years. Scattered deaths and higher mortality rates would continue for centuries from cancer, leukemia, and genetic damage to succeeding generations. Imagine this same event happening, in less than an hour, with not one, but with thousands of strategic nuclear weapons detonating in the cities of the U.S., Russia, China, Europe, India, and Pakistan. The details of such a holocaust are already inscribed in the guidance mechanisms of the missiles waiting to deliver the warheads. Now you understand what the global nuclear arsenals, continually kept at launch on warning status, are capable of doing. What are you going to do about it? Most of the information in this article has been taken, with the permission of the author, from the first chapter of the book by Lynn Eden, Whole World on Fire (Cornell University Press, 2004). An adaptation of this first chapter also appeared as "City on Fire," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (January/February 2004) - http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=jf04eden . Anyone interested in learning more about this subject should read these works. -------- u.n. Introductory Statement to the Board of Governors by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei 24 November 2005 | Vienna, Austria IAEA Board of Governors http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2005/ebsp2005n018.html Our agenda for this meeting is focused on the report of the Technical Assistance and Cooperation Committee (TACC) and issues related to nuclear verification. Technical Cooperation Programme The TACC recommended that the Board approve a number of modifications to the Agency´s proposed technical cooperation (TC) programme for 2006. The focus of TC programme management continues to be the achievement of meaningful and sustained benefits to recipient Member States, in line with national needs and priorities. Following a year long change initiative to enhance TC structures and processes, we are moving towards what we hope will be a period of stability, marked by the efficient delivery of a high quality programme. I welcome the decision of the Committee to recommend that the Board synchronize the regular programme and TC programme cycles. I believe this recommendation is consistent with the "one-house" approach to programmes and to management that I have been promoting. It will help with coordination among Departments in planning, formulating and assessing the performance of our programmes. It will ensure that all our programme activities reflect Member States´ priorities - and as such, will help to improve our impact, effectiveness and efficiency. I recommend that the Board adopt the Committee´s proposal. Verification of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Status of Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols The Agency´s role as an independent, objective verification body remains central to the effectiveness of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. However, as you are aware, the extent of the Agency´s authority remains uneven from country to country. On the whole, 2005 has been a good year in terms of States concluding comprehensive safeguards agreements and additional protocols. However, it is important that we continue and accelerate this trend. Since the Board´s last meeting, the safeguards agreement for Niger has entered into force, and additional protocols have been signed with Belarus and Malaysia. Implementation of Safeguards in the DPRK As I have noted before, the Agency has not performed any verification activities in the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea (DPRK) since December 2002. Therefore, we cannot provide any assurance about DPRK´s nuclear activities since that time. We continue to follow with interest the six-party talks, which aim to achieve a comprehensive settlement on the Korean Peninsula. I hope that these efforts will, inter alia, lead to the return of the DPRK to the non-proliferation regime, and that the Agency will be given the authority required to provide credible, comprehensive assurances regarding the nuclear programme in the DPRK. The Secretariat and I stand ready to contribute to that process. Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran The report before you provides an update on the implementation of Agency safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran. As the report makes clear, the Agency is continuing with its effort to clarify the nature and extent of Iran´s nuclear programme. Iran has provided additional documentation, permitted interviews with relevant individuals, and allowed further access. I welcome these actions on the part of Iran. The Agency is currently assessing the results of this additional information. However, I urge Iran to respond positively and without delay to the Agency´s remaining questions related to uranium enrichment, and to the additional transparency measures we have requested. As I have stated before, these transparency measures are indispensable for the Agency to be able to clarify remaining outstanding issues - in particular, the scope and chronology of Iran´s centrifuge enrichment programme. Clarification of these issues is overdue, after three years of intensive verification efforts. The Agency will continue its investigation of these and other issues in order to be in a position to provide the required assurance about the peaceful nature of the programme. I will continue to report to the Board, as appropriate. The Agency continues to monitor installations related to Iran´s enrichment programmes, and has not observed any deviation from Iran´s voluntary suspension of enrichment activities. Iran has continued to conduct uranium conversion activities at its Esfahan facility. The Agency has been verifying this activity, and all UF6 produced so far at this facility remains under Agency containment and surveillance. I do hope also that, in parallel, every effort will be made so that the dialogue between Iran and all concerned parties can be resumed, with a view to achieving a comprehensive solution that addresses, inter alia, both Iran´s concerns about its right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and the concerns of the international community about the peaceful nature of these activities. I still believe that robust verification by the Agency, combined with active dialogue among all concerned parties, is the best way to move forward. Special Committee on Safeguards and Verification The Special Committee on Safeguards and Verification held its first meeting earlier this month. The Secretariat presented to the Committee the areas in which, from our perspective, the safeguards system could be strengthened. I hope that the Committee, in time, will be able to consider all ways and means to strengthen the system, and will be in a position to recommend concrete measures to the Board. Other Items of Interest Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management In October 2005, the Russian Federation became the 36th country to ratify the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. The 2nd Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Convention will be held next May. This Convention still has only a limited number of Parties, despite the fact that almost all States have radioactive waste, and therefore wide adherence to this Convention would be of clear benefit to the safety and security of all States. The Secretariat intends to organize a series of regional workshops to encourage more States to join this Convention. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- new mexico Decision delayed on NM lab contract By Chris Metinko CONTRA COSTA TIMES Thu, Nov. 24, 2005 http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/living/science/13249976.htm A decision on who will manage and operate Los Alamos National Laboratory will not be made by the Energy Department's self-imposed Dec. 1 deadline, according to a posting Wednesday on the National Nuclear Safety Administration's Web site. According to the site, the chairman of the contract selection board has asked for more time for the board to complete its report. However, the chairman "does not anticipate a significant delay in the selection decision," according to the posting by the NNSA, a semi-autonomous branch of the Energy Department that oversees the nuclear weapons complex. No new deadline was announced. Two teams are competing for the Los Alamos contract. One is headed by the University of Texas and Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defense contractor and current manager of Sandia National Laboratories. The other team is headed by the University of California and Bechtel Corp. UC has managed Los Alamos since the lab was created during World War II. However, security lapses in recent years prompted the Energy Department to put to bid the contracts for the UC-managed Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore weapons labs. -------- MILITARY -------- mideast Turkey moves further batches of upgraded armoured fighting vehicles toward fruition By Christopher F Foss, Editor of Jane’s Armour and Artillery 24 November 2005 http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/idr/idr051124_1_n.shtml Although for many years Turkey has had the largest army in NATO, the Turkish Land Forces Command (TLFC) has never had sufficient funding in place to purchase brand-new vehicles in sufficient numbers. Instead, it has always relied on upgraded armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs). Recently, two new vehicles, the Armoured Recovery Vehicle (ARV) and the Armoured Engineer Vehicle (AEV) - based on surplus M48T5 chassis, have been developed and placed in production at the Kayseri facilities of the TLFC. With a different battlefield role, both the ARV and the AEV conversions feature the lower hull of a M48T5 tank fitted with a brand-new all-welded armoured superstructure. The crew compartment is on the front left side with the turntable mounted boom at front right. The M48 ARV has a combat weight of 51 tonnes and is fitted with a hydraulically operated winch with a maximum rated capacity of 70 tonnes and an auxiliary winch with a capacity of two tonnes. Both winches are located to the front of the vehicle. The M48 AEV is very similar to the ARV and has the same two winches and a front-mounted stabiliser/dozer blade. The boom is still mounted on the right side of the hull at the front but has an extendable jib that can be rapidly fitted with various attachments to meet specific engineer requirements. The boom can be traversed through 195º but when being used as a crane can lift only seven tonnes. 240 of 1,040 words [End of non-subscriber extract.] -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- fema Isolated Native American Communities Struggle in the Aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Thursday, November 24th, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/24/0740237 Isolated and marginalized in normal times, today we look at the plight of Native Americans in the deep bayous of Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. [includes rush transcript] Aid has been slow in reaching these communities and tribal members are still awaiting much-needed supplies from FEMA. There is evidence the tribes have suffered disproportionately from the devastation of the hurricanes because they have been overlooked by federal agencies and relief organizations. Tribal members say relief efforts have been hindered because they do not have federal recognition as Native American tribes. The communities have state recognition but have been struggling for federal recognition for decades. One tribal chief says FEMA was very slow because it didn't even know the tribes existed. Tribal members also say a general lack of media coverage has kept the public in the dark about the communites' plight. Independent filmmaker Gregory Berger recently spoke with tribal leaders of the Biloxi Chitimacha tribes in southern Louisiana. He filed this report. * Native American communities continue to struggle in the Bayous of Louisiana RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Independent filmmaker Gregory Berger recently spoke with tribal leaders of the Biloxi-Chitimacha tribes in Southern Louisiana. He files this report. GREGORY BERGER: These are the bayous of Southern Louisiana. If you're not from here, then you probably don't know that it is home to more than 20,000 Native Americans. CHIEF RANDY VERDUN: Alright, the Isle de Jean Charles Band of Biloxi-Chitimachas community, most of this area of underwater during -- right after Hurricane Rita came through. GREGORY BERGER: Chief Randy Verdun of the Bayou Lafourche Band of Biloxi-Chitimacha. CHIEF RANDY VERDUN: Our community, Bayou Lafourche Band of Biloxi-Chitimachas, they came in the mid to late 1800s, and it was my grandmother’s grandfather who was the first one here. CHIEF ALBERT NAQUIN: The Island started back in around, I guess, 1835, 1840, maybe. GREGORY BERGER: Chief Albert Naquin of the Isle de Jean Charles Band of Biloxi-Chitimacha. CHAIRWOMAN MARLENE FORET: I was born in 1946, same year as Albert. We were born Dulac. I was born at home with a midwife. GREGORY BERGER: Chairwoman Marlene Foret of the Grand Caillou/Dulac Band of the Biloxi-Chitimacha. CHAIRWOMAN MARLENE FORET: My parents, my dad was a fisherman, a trapper, and like Albert, you know, did all the gardening and fishing. We lived off the waters and the land because gardening and fishing. CHIEF ALBERT NAQUIN: And with that, that there was some trading going on. I mean, it’s not everybody that would raise the same thing, so some people would raise certain things in their garden, and it was just like the fishing part, also. My dad fished a special trout, and he'd catch shrimps and oysters, but then there were some others that would go crabbing and do other things, so we'd swap fish for crabs and what have you. GREGORY BERGER: In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, both of which affected the area, the media paid almost no attention to the problems facing Indian communities in Coastal Louisiana. CHIEF RANDY VERDUN: You may see it in the local newspapers or local news media. The only way you'll really find out information is if you maybe do a search on the internet. I'm not sure why that is, but that's just the way it played out this time, and I think, for the most part, it's the way it's been for a long time. You know, you just don't see the plight of the poor people in these Indian communities. You just don't see it. GREGORY BERGER: But it wasn't just the media that ignored these communities. CHIEF ALBERT NAQUIN: FEMA hadn't even heard that there were some communities past Houma, I believe it was, so they didn't know anything about Native Americans in the lower bayous. All they knew was the little maps that they would see with the highways, but in the maps that they have, our community don't even show -- exist on there. So, yeah, FEMA actually admitted that they didn't know that it had Indians, people living in the lower bayous. CHAIRWOMAN MARLENE FORET: I haven't seen anything from the federal or state. FEMA, I don't think anybody has heard from FEMA since this storm, unless they went on the internet. GREGORY BERGER: Native American communities in the bayous were left to fend for themselves. Yet FEMA's failure to respond was only the latest incident in a history filled with neglect and abuse of Native American communities. CHIEF RANDY VERDUN: As time went on in the, I guess, the 1940s, when the oil boom came, a lot of the land started changing hands, and some of that was done, I think, maybe in some ways underhandedly. We have some stories that a lot of the land was supposedly leased to oil companies and, in fact, a lot of these people were signing bills of sale and, I think, even forgery. CHAIRWOMAN MARLENE FORET: We were living on my grandfather's property, and grandpa was the owner until grandma got sick, and then he had to kind of go to the grocery store and buy groceries and put the land up for collateral and eventually was unable to repay, and the land got taken from him. I don't think he was even offered to pay, because I don't think he ever saw a bill for the property. CHIEF RANDY VERDUN: I think what made it easy, I think what made Indian people easy targets, first few of them were educated. At best in my father's generation, at best they had a seventh grade education. In my grandparents' generation, they had no education, so they couldn't read and they couldn't write. Even if they wanted to take some type of action to stop those things that were happening to them, that was happening all around them, they weren't able to. GREGORY BERGER: Compounding the challenges Indians faced to try to hold onto their land, they soon faced a new threat: The land itself began to disappear. CHIEF RANDY VERDUN: You know, what basically caused us to be more vulnerable, then, especially in light of these hurricanes, when the oil field came in, they started drilling, and they started digging their canals to bring their drilling equipment. Those canals were dug specifically for the drilling equipment, so they dug it. It was, you know, just sufficient size to get the equipment in and out, but those things were left once the drilling was completed, but those canals were left open. And you can look at some of the area photographs from 1940 all the way to the present, and what started out to be a canal maybe, you know, 60-80 feet wide is now, you know, several hundred yards wide. And it's just opened up the salt water to come in and just eat away the marsh like a cancer. And you’re just losing – and they talk about it all the time, losing football fields a day. CHAIRWOMAN MARLENE FORET: Their community is more vulnerable now than it was way back. Oil companies came in and drilled for gas, oil, and the canals, in many of them -- and the water kept coming in and salt water, and it just killed the vegetation there, and then as the water was coming in, then the land could not replenish itself. CHIEF ALBERT NAQUIN: And also the pipelines. Say, like, we have like seven pipelines. So to lay the pipeline, they also dig a canal. What it does, it takes the land, and water takes over. Water fills up that deal, and then water comes in a lot faster, like now. Like from when I was a little kid, you’re looking at between high tide and low tide, you're looking about, oh, I guess maybe six maybe to ten inches depending, I guess, on which way the wind was coming from, and now you're looking at probably two feet an hour with a stronger south wind. So, like, see, all of our oak trees are dying, and I guess five-ten years, depending on how much salt water we get, I mean, all the trees on our land probably are going to be all dead. CHAIRWOMAN MARLENE FORET: And it's going to keep on going further up from the way it looks today with the two hurricanes here. GREGORY BERGER: After generations of being gradually pushed out into the bayous and with the land now literally disappearing from under their feet, it was inevitable that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita would disproportionately affect Native American communities. CHIEF ALBERT NAQUIN: Katrina wasn't too bad. We had wind damage. We had five homes that needed major roof repair. But then Rita came around with the water. CHAIRWOMAN MARLENE FORET: A majority of big -- I'd say 80% of the homes in the community went underwater, not totally under, but, I mean, they had several feet of water in the homes. CHIEF RANDY VERDUN: As the water came up, it left a lot of the dirt, once the water receded. You can see it on the roads, you can see it in the homes itself. If you walk into the homes, you might have an inch to three inches of dirt, which all has to be cleaned out. People will start to clean up. You see a lot of the debris, household items, mattresses, appliances, all outside now. Those things are no longer useful. GREGORY BERGER: So what do Indian communities propose to do about it? Above all, they wish to be heard. CHIEF RANDY VERDUN: I think there's a breakdown in communication, because if they didn't know we existed, how can they serve you? CHIEF ALBERT NAQUIN: The people in the community can solve the problem better, because they know what's going on. I mean, they're there every day. The Red Cross and FEMA, they come and say, ‘What can we do to help? I mean, how can we help?’ And we could give them the answer on how to help us, better than them sitting over there saying, ‘Well, let's do this for these people. Let’s do that for these people.’ Sometimes we don't need that. I mean, we need something else. GREGORY BERGER: Many Indian people also want a comprehensive levee system that might protect them from future storms. CHAIRWOMAN MARLENE FORET: A Well, they would have to have the levee, the Morganza to the Gulf, as they're calling it. And we -- people are just going to have to try to get behind -- not behind, push the federal government into giving money so that these levees can be built to protect it. CHIEF ALBERT NAQUIN: But, you know, ain't nobody want to listen to me, so I guess I’m going to have to go there with my sack of cement and build it myself. GREGORY BERGER: But in the uphill battle to protect themselves from future hurricanes in the Gulf, one key political obstacle stands in the way of the Indian people of the Louisiana Gulf Coast: Federal recognition. As of yet, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has yet to grant any of the Indian tribes of the region federal recognition status. CHIEF RANDY VERDUN: Being federally recognized, you basically become an entity of and by itself, which is basically on the same playing field as a state. If you're federally recognized, then you have access to federal funds. You have -- you probably have a lot less bureaucracy. You have a direct connection with the federal government, because you are -- you know, you go straight to the B.I.A., and the B.I.A., of and by itself, is its own agency, so you don't have all the red tape, and I think you have a direct connection to federal relief efforts. CHAIRWOMAN MARLENE FORET: And I really believe if they would have the protection, people would move back to their community, move back into the Lower Dulac and Grand Caillou area. NATIVE AMERICAN WOMAN: I am proud to be an Indian. The government, they want to buy out the people on the bayou. And, I mean, you know, they don't have enough money in the world to buy out these people, because the people love the bayou. Bush better have a lot of money to put us back in -- you know, back -- restore us back, because he's not going to stop us. He's not going to stop us. GREGORY BERGER: For Democracy Now!, this is Greg Berger, reporting from Southern Louisiana. AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, DemocracyNow.org, the War and Peace Report. And to see the video and photographs, the images of the deep bayous of Louisiana, you can go to our website and watch the video podcast or listen to the audio podcast. -------- ACTIVISTS A Conversation with the "Chimpanzee Lady": Jane Goodall on Animals, the Environment and her Life Thursday, November 24th, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/24/0740243 We broadcast an extended conversation with Jane Goodall. She discusses her life, the environment, war, and her new book "Harvest for Hope: A Guide to Mindful Eating." [includes rush transcript] On this Thanksgiving Day, as we cook and share meals with friends and families, we bring you an interview with the renowned primatologist, Jane Goodall. Her latest book is Harvest for Hope : A Guide to Mindful Eating. Goodall, who is known for her groundbreaking work with chimpanzees and baboons, turns her attention to the food we eat and how it reaches our tables. In her book, Goodall examines the danger of corporate ownership of water and the patening of seeds, the hazards of genetically modified foods and the existence of inhumane animal factories. Jane Goodall joined us in our firehouse studios for an extended conversation. * Jane Goodall, renowned primatologist, her latest book is "Harvest for Hope : A Guide to Mindful Eating." RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Jane Goodall recently joined us in our Firehouse studios for an extended conversation, and we began at the beginning. I asked Jane Goodall about where she was born. JANE GOODALL: I was born in London in England in 1934. I went through, as a child, the horrors of World War II, through a time when food was rationed and we learned to be very careful, and we never had more to eat than what we needed to eat. There was no waste. Everything was used. Then, because I had this passion for animals and fell in love with Tarzan by the time I was 11, I was dreaming of going to Africa and living with animals and writing books about them. We didn't have any money, but eventually I managed to save up enough, having been invited to Africa by a school friend to go out by boat to Kenya. I was 23, met the late Louis Leakey, the famous anthropologist, paleontologist, and that led to him offering me this extraordinary opportunity to go and study our closest living relatives in the wild: the chimpanzees. AMY GOODMAN: Talk about what you did with the chimpanzees. JANE GOODALL: The chimpanzee study was – well, it’s still going on, and I think it's taught us perhaps more than anything else to be a little humble, that we are, indeed, unique primates, we humans, but we're simply not as different from the rest of the animal kingdom as we used to think. Above all, we're not the only beings with personalities, minds and, above all, feelings. And this gives one a new respect, not only for the chimpanzees, but once you realize there is no sharp line dividing us from the other animals, but a very blurry line, then you get a new respect for so many of the other amazing animals with whom we share this planet. AMY GOODMAN: You went when you were in your twenties. Talk about the first studies you did, how you spent your time observing the chimpanzees. JANE GOODALL: The biggest problem when I first got there was that they're very conservative. They'd never seen a white ape before, and as soon as they saw me, they would vanish silently into the forest. And although I was in my dream world and loved being there and waking up every morning with the sounds of the birds and the insects and the calls of the chimpanzees, we only had money for six months, because at that time I had no degree of any sort. It had been extremely difficult for Louis Leakey to get money, you know, this crazy idea of a young untrained girl straight from England going out into the jungle, studying animals known to be stronger than us. But eventually, yes, a wealthy American businessman gave money for six months. But I knew if I didn't see something exciting in those first six months, that would be the end of the study, and I would have let Louis Leakey down. AMY GOODMAN: And so, what happened? JANE GOODALL: Fortunately, a breakthrough occurred just before the six-month money ran out, and I will never forget that day going through the wet undergrowth. I was rather cold and miserable. AMY GOODMAN: Where were you? JANE GOODALL: In Gombe National Park. The whole study took place in Gombe National Park on the eastern shore of Lake Tanganyika. And so, there I was kind of depressed, and then I saw a dark shape hunched over the golden soil of a termite mound. And peering through my binoculars, because the chimpanzees were still not habituated to me, I saw a chimpanzee hand reach out and pick a piece of grass, push it down into the mound, leave it for a moment, withdraw it, and bite off the termites clinging on. I saw him reach out and pick a leafy twig and strip the leaves. He was not only using a tool, he was modifying an object, making a tool, and at that time it was thought that we and only we used and made tools. That separated us from the animal kingdom from all the other animals more than anything else, and we were known as “man, the toolmaker.” So this was so exciting. Actually, I did not report it to Louis Leakey until I'd seen it a couple of times more. I thought maybe my eyes were deceiving me. It was really such a breakthrough, so amazing. AMY GOODMAN: And why is it so incredible that, well, first, that we use tools, and then, that the chimpanzees do? JANE GOODALL: Well, it isn't really. It's just that, you know, evolution has led to a continuum of more and more complex behavior as the brain has evolved into a more and more complex organ, and we're capable of very sophisticated problem solving, and one of the ways we solve problems is to use tools, make tools, manufacture tools. It's led to modern technology. And because animals, for the most part, aren't seen using tools, then the very fact that they can have the intelligence to design a tool in nature was considered to be absolutely extraordinary. It didn't seem so to me, but you have to remember that back then it really was thought there was this sharp line dividing us from the rest of the animals. And when I first got to Cambridge University, because Louis said I had to get a degree to get money for myself, I was told that everything I'd done in that study of one-and-a-half years was wrong. I shouldn't have given the chimpanzees names, because that wasn't scientific; I should have numbered them. I couldn't talk about their personality, their mind, and, above all, not their feelings, their emotions, because those things were unique to us. So there was a very, very different perception of animal behavior back then, and most scientists only admitted that animals were little bundles of stimulus and response, and they might look as if they behaved in a human way, but that was just our interpretation. And so the study of animal behavior back then was very cold. They were struggling to make it into a hard science. And any empathy or feeling for the animals you were studying was considered absolutely wrong. AMY GOODMAN: Jane Goodall, the primatologist, the “chimpanzee lady,” author of Harvest for Hope: A Guide to Mindful Eating. We'll be back in a minute. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We return to Jane Goodall, the primatologist. Her new book is called Harvest for Hope. I asked her what she makes of the whole debate against evolution, the whole issue of so-called intelligent design. JANE GOODALL: Whatever we believe about how we got to be the extraordinary creatures we are today is far less important than bringing our intellect to bear on how do we get together now around the world and get out of the mess that we've made. That's the key thing now. Never mind how we got to be who we are. Let's work out a way so that we can preserve what's left of this planet and enhance it for future generations. AMY GOODMAN: Now, I want to talk about that, because that's really what your life work is now all about, what your book, Harvest for Hope, is about. But just for a moment on that issue, since kids spend many, many hours in school, and this debate is raging, what you think of it. JANE GOODALL: I was brought up to understand Darwin's theory of evolution. I spent hours and hours in the Natural History Museum in London looking at the descriptions of how different kinds of animals had evolved, looking at the sequence of fossil bones looking gradually more and more and more and more like the modern fossil. And the same applies to the remains of humans. And I think one of the big questions is, people say to me, “But surely, if you believe in evolution, there's no place for God.” I absolutely don't agree with that. The more I learn about this absolutely awesome and fantastic and wonderful planet and the universe, the incredible nature of the human mind, the more I feel convinced that there is some kind of great spiritual power. I feel there's a meaning to our life on earth. And that does not at all conflict with the idea of gradual evolution. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Jane Goodall. Yes, the “chimpanzee lady” as many have called her over the decades. She's written a new book now called Harvest for Hope: A Guide to Mindful Eating. And I do want to talk about that, but I want to ask how you remain studying chimpanzees for so many decades and how it grew, and then if you could weave it into the subject of this book. JANE GOODALL: The chimpanzee study, originally, Louis Leakey thought that it probably would last three -- no, he thought ten years. When I began, you know, the longest study that had been done in the wild on animals with George Schaller’s one year study of the mountain gorilla. And, of course, Louis was right, but ten years wouldn't have been nearly enough to uncover the complexities. For one thing, chimpanzees can live to be more than 60 years. For another, they are absolutely individuals so that you can't just generalize about behavior. The individual, the experiences, the kind of mothering, the events that have shaped that individual's life create a whole number of unique individuals. So we're continually getting new surprises. We still only have been able to study the development of one pair of twins in all these years. And the tragedy today is that we're -- if we're not very careful, we'll end up studying the extinction of a small population of chimpanzees, because all around the tiny Gombe National Park, which is only 30 square miles, rather suddenly the human population increased because of large numbers of refugees from Burundi, from Congo, and so cultivated fields now come right up to the boundaries. There’s less than 100 chimpanzees living in the park in three communities. AMY GOODMAN: Used to be -- JANE GOODALL: There used to be 150. And now there's really only one viable community. And so, in the long run, there won't be a big enough gene pool for genetic viability. So, in order to try to save the chimpanzees -- I mean, I discovered this very suddenly. I flew over the whole area in a small plane about 15 years ago, and I was absolutely shocked. And the question came, how can we even try to save these amazing chimpanzees if the people are so obviously struggling to survive, with so much farmland deteriorated and infertile and so many people, more than the land could support. So that led to our program, TACARE, which is improving the lives of people in 33 villages around the park in environmentally sustainable ways, particularly working to improve the lives of women, to increase their education, giving scholarships to girls and so forth, so they can go from primary to secondary school. And it was during the development of that program, which I think owes its success to the fact that the whole team is Tanzanian -- it was during the development of that program that I began to realize the enormous importance of farming and the difficulties faced by people when there simply isn't enough land. And that really was the first thing, along with the fact that chimpanzees love food -- and it's a great delight to watch them finding and eating it and listening to the happy sounds they make when they find a new food source -- you know, that's really contributed to this book and helped me to think of writing it. AMY GOODMAN: What do they eat, and what did that make you think about humans? JANE GOODALL: They eat the same as us. They're omnivores, which means they eat a bit of everything. They eat mostly fruit, but they also eat leaves, blossoms, stems, and things like that. They eat insects. They sometimes hunt. Meat is about 2% of their diet in a year. And so, their diet is held up by some to be the perfect diet for us and perhaps closer to the diet of the hunter-gatherers of this world. AMY GOODMAN: In your book, you start off looking at the animals. Then you talk about common sense farming. Take it from there. What is common sense farming? JANE GOODALL: Common sense farming is the kind of farming that took place all over England when I was growing up. I went to stay on a farm when I was just a small child, loving animals, growing up in the city of London; it was a treat, and there were cows and pigs and horses, and they were out in the fields. And I was helping to collect the hens’ eggs, no battery farms then, hens pecking about in the farmyard. And my first observations of animals came – first of all, I wanted to know how a hen laid an egg, so I had to wait in the hen house for four hours to find out, and I was only four years old. And secondly, habituating a pig, who was out in the field with other pigs, and after seven days of this glorious holiday and my holding out apple cores each day, he finally took it from my hand. So these experiences with the old kind of farming taught me a lot about farm animals. I knew -- it was obvious that they were highly intelligent, and it was a real shock when in the mid-1970s I read a book, Peter Singer's Animal Liberation, which explained the full horror of intensive farming. I found it hard to believe people could actually treat animals this way, as though they're just machines. And the next time I looked at a piece of meat on my plate, I thought, “What does this symbolize? Fear? Pain? Death?” I never ate it again. And, you know, this is very much part of this book. The old common sense farming nurtured the land. The different animals were rotated with the different kinds of crops that were grown. The kind of crops were grown that withstood different environmental situations, flooding or drought, particularly in Africa, of course. And as big agribusiness is buying up more and more land and crowding these small farmers off their land, it's also enabling them to produce food more and more cheaply, because it's done in such an unethical way, to be poisoning us and torturing animals, and because the food is produced more cheaply, that means that the traditional farmers can no longer compete, and they're struggling to survive. They're an endangered species, and I just feel the passionate need to help them by patronizing farmers’ markets and buying local and eating local as much as possible and trying to once again instill in people how exciting it is to wait, as I waited as a child, for different foods to come into season. And now, you want a peach in November, you can get one from somewhere without any thought about the huge amounts of fossil fuel that are being used to bring it to you and what has been done to this peach to make it still look fresh. All these things, people don't actually think about where their food comes from, how it's produced and what might be in it. AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the animal factories. I think most people in this country don't have any idea what you're talking about. JANE GOODALL: You know, the sad thing: They don't want to know. When I try to explain how you have maybe five hens crushed into a tiny wire cage that size for their whole lives to lay eggs, how you have hens crushed in a room, doesn't matter how big it is, but falling over each other, trampling on dead bodies. Pigs -- and we know that pigs are at least as, and often more, intelligent than dogs. I mean, did you know pigs can actually use a computer? They can be taught to move a cursor with their snouts up and down and side to side and answer questions, and they are these amazingly intelligent animals. And I love pigs. And they're crammed -- they can't even turn around. They're in these tiny sties. And the pig, having her babies, the sow, is confined under a farrowing hoop so she can’t turn around, she can't even stand up very often. And the cows in the so-called animal food lots, in tiny yards, forced to stand often under the hot sun on baked ground or in the mud mixed with feces. And then comes the [inaudible], the slaughterhouse. And because each second means money, although it's law to stun an animal before you start slitting it up, if the stunning gun misses, which it often does, the bolt of electricity, then they start slicing up the live animals. I mean, this has been shown again and again. But what I was saying is if you start telling people about all this, so many people say, “Don't tell me. I'm very sensitive, and I love animals,” and I'm thinking, “This doesn't make sense.” AMY GOODMAN: And how does bioengineered, genetically modified foods fit into this picture? JANE GOODALL: Well, I have a serious mistrust of them. You know, you remember Rachel Carson wrote that book way back when Silent Spring, and she was talking about the bad effects, the cumulative effect of DDT in the environment and in animals' bodies. It took 30 years to show that DDT did accumulate and was a very, very highly dangerous chemical. Initially, it was thought to be harmless. It wasn't anybody's bad intention. And in the same way we cannot predict the long-term cumulative effect of many of the other chemicals being used today, nor can we predict the long-term cumulative effect of genetically modified crops on the environment, but also on our own health. You know, recently some genetically modified corn intended for cattle escaped into the stores, and people got very sick. Now, okay, that was intended for cattle, and maybe the cattle don't get sick, but we’re eating their flesh. And animals, by and large, don't like genetically modified food. They wanted to test some tomatoes on rats, and they actually had to use stomach pumps before the rats would even eat them. AMY GOODMAN: How did they detect the difference? JANE GOODALL: I suppose its smell. I don't know. Maybe its taste. We don't know, and nobody has really studied why they don't do it. They also prefer organic food, which, of course, is the answer for us. Organic food is free from pollution. It's free from G.M.O., genetically modified crops. AMY GOODMAN: Tell us about the activism against genetically modified crops. You have pictures in your book of people digging them up, and in this country it is way behind in the protest movement that's much more advanced in Europe. JANE GOODALL: Yes, and unfortunately for Americans, it's very difficult to know whether G.M. food is actually, you know, in what you're eating, because there's no labeling required, whereas in Europe it's required to state whether or not G.M. foods are in this particular product. So in Europe, I think probably led by Prince Charles in the U.K. anyway, people are very mistrustful. There is quite a lot of science, and I'm not going to pretend to go into the science, but a lot of science that is quite strongly against G.M. foods. And so people go out into the fields and pull up the crops, to such an extent that in most cases the companies trying to develop G.M. crops have given up. They're not prepared to do it anymore, because it keeps getting pulled up. It's not just U.K.; it's England, Germany, Italy, India, Japan. And Percy Schmeiser, who is -- his case history is in this book. He's the one Canadian farmer who actually dared stand up to one of the giants of the G.M. movement; that's Monsanto. And he was actually prosecuted in court for violating Monsanto patent on canola, even though it was the wind or the bees or something like that that had brought the corn into his field in the first place. He was growing it and, therefore, he received a letter to say he was in violation of their patent. And in court, you know, he was told that he was in violation, but he didn't have to pay, so it was sort of, you know -- but anyway, he's traveling the world now, all over the world. I spoke to him last week, and I think right now he's in Nigeria. AMY GOODMAN: Jane Goodall, primatologist and author. Her latest book is Harvest for Hope: A Guide to Mindful Eating. And we'll be back with her in a minute. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Jane Goodall, who is known for studying chimpanzees for decades and has now written a book, Harvest for Hope: A Guide to Mindful Eating. In this country, there are laws against food disparagement, you may have heard. Oprah Winfrey was sued by the National Cattlemen's Association for saying on her broadcast that she would never eat another hamburger again. JANE GOODALL: I know. And good for her. But I know that there's a company being sued right now, because on its label it says it doesn't have genetically modified food. It's hard for me to see how this can be a law case, but -- AMY GOODMAN: And not sued because, in fact, they do have G.M. food, and this – for example, Ben and Jerry's company dealt with this also. But by saying that, they imply that there's something wrong with genetically modified food. JANE GOODALL: You can say they do, and that's obviously what the law says. But, you know, there need to be people standing up for what they believe to be the truth. AMY GOODMAN: What do you think is the answer right now? And you travel the world -- when I asked you where you lived earlier, you basically said, “In an airplane.” What are the differences you see between this country and other countries you've been in? JANE GOODALL: There are differences at different levels, but for one thing, as you mentioned, there is much more awareness about what genetically modified food is in Europe, for example. But if I'm asked to say, you know, what do you really see is the difference between the developing world and this country, to some extent Europe, but especially the United States: waste. We waste so much. We waste food. We waste water. You go to a restaurant -- I mean, it hurts me. It’s not just because of the developing world. I remember back to the war years when food was rationed. I remember Tanzania when it was at the bottom of its economy after the war with Uganda. And food was hard to get. People couldn't buy bread for a long time. There was no sugar. We had to barter. We'd go to one part of the country and come back with cooking oil and barter it for sugar that some people had brought back from somewhere else. And a lot of people couldn't afford to do that. So the waste that I see in a restaurant, where people's plates are piled with food and so much of it goes back, and it has to be binned. It's not even safe to feed it to animals today, in case you get sued for something or other. AMY GOODMAN: You were talking about what happens to pigs, what happens to chickens. What about ducks? JANE GOODALL: Ducks. Ducks, with their forced feeding for pate fois, fois gras. That's almost the cruelest of all, whether these metal or plastic tubes are forced down into the ducks' gullet and fatty substances are pumped in, and it makes their liver expand to about ten times its normal size, and only finally then is the bird killed. Meanwhile, they suffer many -- much damage and infections. And you can imagine with a tube being put down their neck, imagine if it was yours. And veal. Little calves in these tiny, tiny crates where they can barely lie down if they do lie down. They can hardly stand. And because people like the flesh to be white, towards the end they're deprived of iron, so that they even try and drink their own urine. So when they go to slaughter, their legs break, because they can't walk, which is the same for pigs and lots of other animals, too. I mean, it's very, very cruel. You cannot get away from the fact that intensive farming, creating huge amounts of meat, is cruel. But more than that, it's damaging the land, because it takes a huge amount more land to produce so many pounds of animal protein, whether you're grazing the cattle or whether you're growing corn to feed to the cattle, than it does that same piece of ground will grow far more vegetable protein from cereals grown on that land, and then there's the question of the water. It takes gallons and gallons more water to raise one cow than the equivalent amount of vegetable protein. AMY GOODMAN: And what would you say to the animal farmers, the mass, large corporate, for example, hog farmers and others who say it's more efficient to do it this way? JANE GOODALL: It's more efficient in that they can produce more meat quickly and, therefore, sell it cheaper. But if you balance against all of that the suffering of the animals, the contamination of the environment from the animal waste, which is huge, and finally, the sickness of people who are eating things that we shouldn't be eating, and again, I come back to the children. And children's health is suffering, and in addition we have this epidemic of obesity, which comes from fast foods. So, you know, the antidote is to buy organic food if you can and to eat locally when you can to support farmers’ markets and to go back to an old feeling of when we used to feel in touch with our food. And I'm thrilled at some of the movements that are happening. I mean, that's the hopeful part of this book, that there are all these movements going on, like the slow food movement, like -- AMY GOODMAN: Explain the slow food movement. JANE GOODALL: The slow food movement is the opposite of fast food, and it simply means, you know, that you, once again, cook, that you buy locally grown food, that you're in touch with the land. And I am not quite sure why they call it slow food, except it's the opposite of fast food, which is just quick, quick, quick, don't think -- buy, pop it in a microwave oven, open a packet, eat it. This requires cooking your food, knowing about your food. And then there’s the wonderful programs, growing food in school gardens and teaching children to cook. And there are the farmers’ markets. AMY GOODMAN: How do these movements fit in? How do you fit into the anti-corporate globalization movement in this country and around the world? JANE GOODALL: See, I -- it's very -- it's a very complex, difficult kind of thing to tackle, really, but I think it boils down to this, that in the old days, many of the indigenous people, before they made a major decision, like ‘Let's cut down all this forest and grow grass for grazing cattle to make hamburgers,’ before making such a decision, the elders would gather and ask themselves how will this decision we make now affect our people in seven generations to come? But today so many decisions are made in relation to the next shareholders meeting. So in other words, it's making a quick buck now, and it's not thinking about the future. And what I find so extraordinary is that with this amazing brain we have and our ability – I mean, think what we've done with it. We've sent people to the moon. We've created an incredible network that enables us to communicate around the world. You and I could be talking to people in China, live, this minute, if we wanted. It's amazing. And the advances in medical technology, incredible. And yet, at the same time we can create weapons of mass destruction, we can destroy huge areas of the environment, and we are destroying the planet upon which we live. We're harming our own health. So what's happened? How did this -- how could this have happened? And I can only think that there’s some disconnect gone wrong between the brain and the human heart, where our compassion lives, that we've lost or are losing wisdom. And being clever and being wise are two different things. And we've got to somehow work to reinstall the values that make people wise in our children, which is why I'm spending so much time with our youth program, Roots & Shoots, now in 90 countries. This is the reason for my crazy 300 days a year travel. It's growing this program with materials from preschool right through university, and it's changing lives in the inner city, it's changing lives in rural areas. AMY GOODMAN: And you do what? JANE GOODALL: Every group chooses three different kinds of project, initially to improve the world around them, firstly for their own human community, second for animals, including domestic animals, third for the environment. And woven throughout it all is the sense of living in peace and harmony with each other, with the animal kingdom and with the natural world. And it's very much about breaking down barriers that we erect between people of different cultures, countries, religions, between us and the animal kingdom. And it really is changing the world. It's not that children can make change. They are making change. They're cleaning streams. They're clearing up litter. They're helping the elderly walk their dogs. They're doing things locally, feeling good about it, and then reaching out, like helping Katrina victims, helping the victims of tsunami and the Pakistan earthquake. They're connected around the world with this wonderful communication network. And they're with others who do have compassion, who do care for the future. They get it. So if we can get a critical mass of youth that is moving in a direction away from the materialistic morals, ethic, or lack of ethic and lack of morals, of so many people in the modern world today, then, maybe then we can reclaim wisdom. AMY GOODMAN: How does war fit into this picture, and peace? JANE GOODALL: War and peace. War is devastating to the environment. It's devastating to human life. So often people talk about, you know, damage done to civilians, and doesn't it matter that the soldiers are also torn apart? They have the same feelings as the civilians. So many go off to fight, not because they really want to, but because they're pushed into it, forced into it, peer pressure to get a job, whatever it happens to be. And I don't think we can ever learn to live in real harmony with nature while we're fighting. But equally, we'll never be able to lay down our weapons worldwide, until we learn to live in harmony with nature. The big wars, they say, are going to be fought over water, access to water. Big businesses buying up the aquifers. AMY GOODMAN: When we spoke earlier, you said you've been warned about using the word “peace.” JANE GOODALL: It seems that -- I don't understand this, but it seems that peace has become a political word. For me, that's not so. Peace means being able to live in harmony with each other. And I was made a U.N. Messenger of Peace, and Kofi Annan did that because of Roots & Shoots, because I could honestly say, ‘Kofi, wherever I go, I'm spreading seeds of global peace.’ We have our own Roots & Shoots Peace Day, and because when you're made a messenger of peace, a little dove is pinned to you -- for some reason I'm not wearing mine today, but here it is on your mug -- then one of the Roots & Shoots groups in New York created this giant pea-stuffed puppet out of old sheets, recycled sheets, and a bit of chicken wire, and when I was wondering how I could help promote the U.N. Day of Peace, I thought, ‘Yes, we'll fly these around the world.’ So this -- we had our Peace Day on the 24th of September. I think we flew doves in about 50 countries. In Los Angeles, they flew 30 in a wonderful parade. I was on the Snake River flying two doves on two canoes and, you know, my vision is that the day will come when as the sun goes around the world these giant wings will spread out, and you'll be able to look down from the satellite and see them, and surely because the young people are building into these doves their own commitment to living in peace with themselves and their family, their environment, then some of these dreams will drift off in the wind and settle on areas still torn apart by conflict. AMY GOODMAN: So who is warning you against using the word “peace”? JANE GOODALL: It's just that some N.G.O.s are being warned that there are certain things which they shouldn't be using, certain words that will bring them into disrepute. And peace -- it can't be true, can it? That cannot be a political -- peace is something we all aspire to. Peace is something every child dreams about. You ask children around the world what are their dreams, and one of the things they'll say is “Peace.” I don't believe there's a single living person who really wants to be involved in a war if there was any way out. AMY GOODMAN: Well, Jane Goodall, as we wrap up, your plans for the future, and how they're informed by what you've done, living very remotely, first, well, in your twenties with animals, with the chimpanzees. Do you have hope for the future as you look at the powers that are arrayed against the principles that you care about? JANE GOODALL: That's the question I'm asked most often: Can I really have hope when I see animal species becoming extinct, when I see forests giving place to deserts, when I see the suffering, the poverty, and so much of the developing world and the sickness, the hunger, when I see the ethnic violence everywhere and the tremendous social injustice? Do I really have hope for peace? And I wouldn't write books about peace if I didn't have hope, and maybe my hope for peace is -- and my hope for the future and my hope that we'll get out of this mess, this monstrous mess that we find ourselves in, maybe they're simplistic. Maybe they're idealistic. But they work for me. The human brain and, you know, if you actually check around to see what people have invented that will allow us to live in more harmony with nature, I mean, there are many, many scientists who say if we would just do these things and stop talking about them, we have the way to get out of so much of the mess we've made. So that's one reason for hope and that more people are thinking about the way they live and realizing that what we do each day does, in fact, have an impact on the world. Second reason for hope: the resilience of nature, the places we destroy which can be given a second chance. The animal species on the very brink of extinction, and in some cases down to just two individuals, but they can, too, be given a second chance, if we care enough.