NucNews - November 25, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- britain OVER-REACTING Just when you thought it could get no worse, Neo Labour goes nuclear. Friday 25th November 2005 SchNews UK http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news522.htm The whispering campaign around the push for nuclear power has been gaining momentum since last year. Until then Britain’s nuclear programme seemed to have been largely written off as the costly and dangerous failure it was. Nobody even knows how to safely decommission the power stations already built or store the radioactive waste already produced. Britain’s nuclear power programme was historically dogged with safety issues, radioactive contamination and, of course, massive overspend. And yet now we’re supposed to sit back and swallow the construction of a few more of these toxic dumps. How’re they going sell this to the British public? You have to stand back and admire the propaganda. In the face of a potentially very cold winter, Neo Labour is using their own incompetence in not securing sufficient energy supplies or efficiency to go round saying, “Do you want Granny to shiver alone at Christmas? Do you want to have to rely on gas pumped thousands of miles across steppes haunted only by bearded jihadists every time you want a cup of tea? So come on! What’s a little radioactive waste between friends?” This glowing bombshell is being slipped in under the umbrella of a “wide ranging review of all Britain’s energy needs”. But Tony’s think-tanks have come to the conclusion that wind turbines in marginal countryside constituencies are big vote losers and it’s the intoxicating power of glowing uranium rather than hippy wind and wave power that the Confederation of British Industry wants, so it’s likely that’s what they’ll get. Even Johnny Ball, CBBC’s “Mr Science”, was seen weighing in on the side of radioactive waste dumps on Channel 4 news. So far the need for nuclear power is being pushed on energy shortages, national security issues and the need to cut carbon emissions. The first two have an element of truth - but only if we want to carry on in the same energy wasteful, consumerist way as before. If that’s the case then we need more energy. The problems currently being encountered in Iraq have signalled that we may not be able to just help ourselves to world’s hydrocarbon reserves without a backlash anymore. Or in other words, if we want the shopping malls then we’ve got to put up with a perpetual state of war. Seizing the initiative the nuclear lobby came crawling back into the debate claiming to have the solution to energy shortage and Britain’s security. They reckon their magic solution, hedging Britain's energy bets by including nuclear in the power re-mix, will cut UK carbon emissions. These claims fail to impress on closer inspection leaving you wondering why precisely the government is floating this idea now. Is it anything to do with UK plc’s need to hang on to an independent nuclear deterrent and a source of weapons grade plutonium? BNFL, which will be administering the PFI contracts for reactors, is also the major shareholder in Britain’s militarised reactor at Aldermaston. HEDGE OF DARKNESS Britain’s 12 nuclear power stations provide a quarter of our electricity now, but unless they are replaced with new ones as they reach retirement, then there will only be three nuclear stations left in operation by 2020 producing less than 10% of our current consumption. The plan was to replace nuclear power with wind and solar energy so that by 2020, green energy would account for a fifth of our total leccy consumption. The National Audit Office reported back in February that electricity bills would need to rise by over 10% per cent if we are to meet these targets. With an inability to meet even these modest targets over the next 15 years, there is no hope of achieving Britain’s longer-term goal of cutting carbon emissions by 60% while sustaining continual growth by 2050 unless nuclear is somewhere in the energy mix. Therefore, unbelievably, the biggest nuke programme since the 1960s is being sold as the cornerstone of our environmental protection policy! - of course the idea that we cut down on our levels of carbon emissions by cutting down on consumption of fuels and products is politically unthinkable. So put memories of the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters to one side. Forget about British Nuclear Fuel’s poor health and safety record for just one moment. Try not to recall the evidence of increased cancer risk for people living near the power stations. Try not to think about how safe having a new load of nuclear reactors is likely to make us. Forget the scattered depleted uranium. This is a carbon neutral way of meeting our emissions targets, is it not? Er, no, not when you take into account the preparation of uranium for the reactor which involves mining and milling the ore, fuel enrichment and fuel-rod fabrication. Then there’s the construction of the power station itself. At the other end there’s reactor decommissioning and the treatment, storage, transport and disposal of nuclear waste. All in all, Greenpeace reckon that Co2 emissions from nuclear power are at least a third of those from traditional fossil fuels. Not only that, but all this ignores the relatively small role played by nuclear power in the overall energy economy. The UK fleet of 23 operating nuclear reactors generates just 22% of the UK’s electricity. Electricity generation currently accounts for 37% of the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions, with transport and heating the other major sources. Even if all 23 nuclear reactors were closed and electricity generation was replaced by a mix of coal, gas and renewables, UK carbon dioxide emissions would only rise by about 10%. In contrast, clean, renewable power sources, hand-in-hand with reduced consumption and energy efficiency measures, offer the best hope for preventing global climate catastrophe. POWER TRIP In any case the UK is currently pissing energy up the wall like a binge drinker. The Government’s own Performance and Innovation Unit found that up to one third of our energy is wasted due to poorly insulated homes and energy hungry appliances. Improving the way we use our energy could save around 40 million tonnes of carbon emissions a year. Our current centralised energy system is highly inefficient; two thirds of primary energy may be lost up the UK’s chimneys and transmission lines alone. In Denmark, decentralised energy systems account for half of electricity production; ten times the rate here in the UK. In decentralised energy systems, electricity is generated locally to use with a distributed grid system. Buildings, instead of being passive consumers of energy, are parts of local energy networks using small scale renewable technologies. Combined with renewables like wind, wave, tidal, solar and biomass, even according to the Department of Trade and Industry, clean energies could provide a quarter of our needs by 2025. But much easier just to sell our children’s (and the next few generations) future down the river with the solution best geared for keeping shareholder meetings and boardrooms glowing green with happiness – here's to the nuclear family! * This is the state of play as Britain heads for the international climate conference in Montreal (Nov 28th to Dec 9th), the first meeting since the Kyoto Protocol was ‘agreed’. Another great chance for world leaders to agree to do little but continue profiteering: look out for our forthcoming review in your ever energetic SchNEWS. For more about climate change campaigning in Britain see www.londonrisingtide.org.uk REBEL ALLIANCE “Crackdown - The Shape of Things to Come” Special meeting of Rebel Alliance - Brighton's irregular get-together of groups fighting for social change. November 30, Cowley Club, 12 London Road, Brighton. 7.30pm. CASTOR BLASTER GERMANS GET RADIO-ACTIVE Anti-nuclear actions have mushroomed in Germany this week, directed at the highly radioactive nuclear waste train that travels from the nuclear storage facility in La Hague, France to Gorleben in Germany. Germany has no facility to deal with its nuclear waste so ships it off to France to be processed and ‘temporarily’ stored (it takes 40 years for it to cool!) before then being brought back to Germany in the infamous CASTOR trains. Worryingly it’s the nuclear power companies who are then left the responsibility for storing all this atomic waste, which can lead to it being dumped at sites where it could cause serious accidents and be vulnerable to terrorist exploitation. Protesters argue that the long-term storage of this waste would lead to radioactive material seeping into the water supply in the region, and Thomas Breuer, a nuclear expert with environmental group Greenpeace said, “The radioactivity of these 12 containers is two and a half times higher than that of Chernobyl.” Actions took place at different places along the route and included sit-ins on the tracks, blockades by 160 tractors, and kids who went on a mass egg throwing mission. Fallout with the German authorities certainly wasn’t depleted as the coalition of activists were met by some 15,000 police, mobilized to secure the passage of the train. This is the ninth shipment since 1996, and last year’s protests resulted in the death of a 23-year-old French environmental activist, Sebastien Briat, who had his leg severed by the train whilst he was chained to the track, and he died before reaching hospital (See SchNEWS 473). Some good news, however, is that Germany has been steering towards the utilisation of renewable resources and the abolishment of nuclear plants as part of the Nuclear Exit programme it signed with the power industry in 2005. This will see 19 of Germany’s atomic power stations being closed by 2020, in a drive to encourage a transition to renewable-fuel production. The production of wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and biomass energy has doubled in the last 5 years thanks to this piece of legislation * Reports of actions: www.indymedia.org.uk * More on nuclear phase-out in Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_phase-out#Germany -------- china U.S. Equipment in Chinese Ports Will Detect Nuclear Smuggling WASHINGTON, DC, November 25, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2005/2005-11-25-09.asp#anchor3 The United States and China have agreed to cooperate on installing special equipment at Chinese ports to detect smuggling of nuclear and radioactive materials, according to the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The equipment will help thwart attempts to smuggle material for nuclear weapons and dirty bombs, which use conventional explosives to spread radioactive material. The effort is part of the Megaports Initiative, an NNSA program to enhance the capabilities of other maritime nations to detect, deter and interdict illicit shipments of nuclear and other radioactive materials through ocean shipping. The NNSA initiative complements the Homeland Security Department's Container Security Initiative, in which Customs and Border Protection agents partner with countries operating major shipping ports to help safeguard the international supply chain, according to the Department of Energy. "The United States and the People's Republic of China recognize the importance of joining forces against the threat posed by the trafficking of nuclear and other radioactive materials," said NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks. "This agreement represents a significant step forward in the effort to improve the security of the global maritime shipping network," he said, "and furthers both nations' efforts to work cooperatively in hindering terrorism." U.S. Embassy Beijing Deputy Chief of Mission David Sedney joined Deputy Director General Hao Chongfu from China's Department of Customs Control and Inspection, and Deputy Director General Fan Guozhen from China's Health Department of the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine in signing the accord. This is the 12th cooperative agreement and joins efforts currently underway in Singapore, Sri Lanka, Belgium, and Spain. Other nations from Europe, Asia, South America, the Middle East and the Caribbean are also in active discussions with the United States to add the NNSA monitoring systems in key port facilities worldwide to further international nonproliferation efforts and provide useful evidence to support prosecution efforts. -------- europe Bulgaria Wants More EU Funds to Close Atomic Plant Story by Michael Winfrey REUTERS BULGARIA: November 25, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33662/newsDate/25-Nov-2005/story.htm SOFIA - Bulgaria will ask the European Union for an additional 280 million euros to finance the closure of four reactors at its Soviet-designed Kozloduy nuclear power plant as it gears up for entry in 2007, it said on Thursday. The Balkan state's new Socialist-led cabinet has criticised the former government of ex-king Simeon Saxe-Coburg for agreeing with Brussels to decommission four of Kozloduy's six blocks by the end of next year. On Thursday it granted a mandate to Foreign Minister Ivailo Kalfin and Economy Minister Rumen Ovcharov to lead talks with the EU's executive Commission for additional financial support. "Bulgaria has the need and capacity to use additional funds of 280 million euros, which would eventually be extended by the European Union because of the closures. This is the position the two ministers are going to defend," it said in a statement. Neither ministry would immediately comment on the decision. Eager to gain membership, Saxe-Coburg's 2001-2005 government shut down blocks 1 and 2 at Kozloduy in 2003 and agreed to mothball 4 and 5 by the end of next year. The last two reactors will continue operating into the next decade. But because Kozloduy provides some 40 percent of the Balkan state's total power output, many of the poor Balkan state's 7.8 million people fear the shut-downs could drive up energy prices. Members of the Socialist party have also argued the reactors can be safely used until 2015 and closing them will hurt Bulgaria's position as the region's leading power exporter. Brussels, which has already pledged to extend 550 million euros to decommission the reactors, has taken a firm stance on nuclear closures in new members, forcing Slovakia and Lithuania to mothball Soviet-era units ahead of their accession last year. But the government said it had already agreed with the Commission, in principle, that the extra funds could be extended to help pay for the shut-downs after the first chunk is exhausted at the end of 2009. It added the funds should be earmarked in the thorny talks over the Union's future budget currently being led by Britain. "In line with achieving a political compromise by the year end, it is necessary to plan a concrete sum in the EU budget framework proposed by the European Commission," it said. Bulgaria and its neighbour Romania were left out of the wealthy bloc's landmark expansion into former communist Europe last year and are now racing to complete a pile of reforms to be able to join in 2007. Brussels has warned the Black Sea neighbours to step up reforms in administration, judiciary and other sectors as well as stamp out rampant graft and organised crime or it will delay their memberships until 2008. -------- iran Atomic Agency Delays Action on Iran By RICHARD BERNSTEIN November 25, 2005 New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/25/international/europe/25vienna.html?pagewanted=print VIENNA, Nov. 24 - The International Atomic Energy Agency delayed taking any action on Iran's nuclear program on Thursday, even as the British delegate, speaking for Europe, said that a process described in documents offered to Iran, which came to light last week, "has no other application other than the production of nuclear warheads." The widely anticipated move to delay consideration of sending Iran's case to the United Nations Security Council was aimed at reopening negotiations on a Russian proposal for a compromise which would allow Iran to enrich uranium, but only in Russia and under strict controls. The charges made by Peter Jenkins, the British delegate to the atomic energy agency, refer to a report issued last week by the agency's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, indicating that Iran recently turned over documents showing that in 1987 a Pakistani nuclear expert offered it equipment for machining enriched uranium into a hemispherical form normally used in nuclear weapons. The European Union "is disturbed to see that Iran has now admitted to having in its possession a document which related to the casting and machining of enriched uranium metal into hemispherical forms," Mr. Jenkins said in a statement to the board. "Such a process has no application other than the production of nuclear warheads," he added, speaking on behalf of the European Union and several other countries. Iran insists that its nuclear program is strictly for peaceful energy purposes. It also says that it never sought the engineering drawings the Pakistani expert offered. It was noteworthy that the criticism was made by Europe, which has been negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program, instead of the United States, which has pressed most strongly to refer Iran's program to the Security Council for possible penalties. When Dr. ElBaradei released the report last Friday, he did not draw any conclusions about whether the documents showed that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. However, experts said that while it was possible that some of the material described in the report could be applied to nuclear reactors, it pointed heavily in the direction of weapons research. The United States contends that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear warhead to fit atop its Shahab missile, which can reach Israel and other Middle Eastern countries. But the evidence has been sketchy and open to dispute. The decision not to go immediately to the Security Council was also aimed at giving Russia and, perhaps, China, time eventually to support the Europeans and the United States on the Iranian matter. Despite several strong statements to the effect that Iran, after three years of prodding by the atomic energy agency's inspectors, is still apparently concealing aspects of its nuclear program, the Europeans and the United States have agreed informally to reopen negotiations in Iran based on the Russian formula. Diplomats said the sides had agreed to meet, under Russian auspices, on Dec. 6, though there has been no formal announcement of a meeting. "We have acceded to the request of several board members who have asked for more time for diplomatic dialogue on the future of Iran's nuclear program, particularly as Russia has proposed some ideas which deserve serious consideration," Mr. Jenkins told reporters. "But Iran should not conclude that this window of opportunity will remain open in all circumstances," he added. The longstanding effort by three European countries, Britain, Germany and France, to strike a deal with Iran over its nuclear program, was suspended in September after Iran announced that it would resume uranium conversion at a nuclear plant in Isfahan, an activity that it had promised to cease as long as negotiations were taking place. Now, however, in apparently agreeing to reopen those talks, the Europeans, with American consent, seem to have given up on trying to prevent Iran from all conversion activities, which turn a solid uranium compound into a gas, which can then be enriched to produce nuclear fuel. The object of the negotiations would seem to be to obtain an Iranian agreement to forgo enrichment activities, a process technologically more difficult than mere conversion, and one that would essentially give any country that could perform it the ability to produce fuel for nuclear weapons. But in past statements Iran has insisted not only on its right to convert uranium but to enrich it on Iranian soil as well. ---- Nuking Iran Without the Dachshund Antiwar.com, CA - Nov 25, 2005 http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8153 How do you convince military planners to prepare detailed plans for a nuclear attack against a non-nuclear nation, without having them think you are a madman? Use the dachshund principle, as illustrated by this old story: A small boy asked his father how wireless telegraphy works. "First let me explain how telegraphy works with wires," said the father. "Imagine a dachshund so long that his tail is in New York and his head is in London. You pull his tail in New York and he barks in London [no reference to Tony Blair intended]. Do you understand?" "Yes," said the boy, "it's perfectly clear. Now what about wireless telegraphy?" "Exactly the same thing," replied the father. "Only without the dachshund." In July of this year, a remarkable story by former CIA intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi appeared in the American Conservative and spread quickly over the Internet. It read, "The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." The "9/11-type terrorist attack" is, of course, the dachshund. You need it to make the process understandable, but not to actually do wireless telegraphy. If you are Dick Cheney and you want to draw up plans to nuke Iranian installations, how will you go about it? You need a "reasonable" scenario to convince people that you are not mad, that it is not a waste of time to plan to nuke a non-nuclear country that is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, a country that is working with the IAEA to dispel unproven accusations that it is aiming to produce nuclear weapons, and that is at least a decade away from the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons (NIE estimate), further than it was in a CIA 1993 estimate. Well, if another 9/11 attack or worse were to occur, and it was attributable to Iran, such a response might be conceivable. So let's draw up the plans, just in case. Once wireless telegraphy is in place, it works without the dachshund. Once plans to nuke Iran are in place, they can be implemented without the "9/11-type terrorist attack." Barely two months after the Giraldi story appeared, the Pentagon's "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" [.pdf], which outlines several scenarios for the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries in precisely the same situation as Iran, came to light. Coincidence? Barely two weeks later, the U.S. succeeded in getting a totally toothless resolution passed by the IAEA [.pdf] on Iran's noncompliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which implies, however, that the U.S. would not be violating its commitment to the NPT if it used nuclear weapons against Iran. Coincidence again? John Bolton has been the administration's point man on nuclear policy and aggressive in denouncing Iran's supposedly evil intentions. He will be the ideal person to explain to the world, after the fact, why a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran was justified. Earlier this year, he was appointed as U.S. ambassador to the UN, over extraordinary bipartisan opposition. Coincidence again? All along, the administration has been ratcheting up the pressure on Iran, disseminating "classified" evidence from a laptop computer that purports to prove that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. U.S. pressure managed to derail the negotiations between Iran and the European Union following the "Paris agreement" of December 2004. The Philip Giraldi story concludes, "Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing –that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections." And those senior Air Force officers are presumably not prepared to make the information public, because it is classified. Nevertheless, let us see if we can glimpse what the relevant classified information may be. Executive Order 12958 of 1995, dealing with "Classified National Security Information," says that information considered for classification includes, among others: * (A) military plans, weapons systems, or operations; * (B) foreign government information; * (E) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security; * (G) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, projects, or plans relating to the national security. Now fast forward to March 25, 2003, and the updated version, Executive Order 13292. All the above is included, with the following changes: * (E) now has added "which includes defense against transnational terrorism"; * (G) now has added "which includes defense against transnational terrorism"; * a new item: (H) weapons of mass destruction. The new executive order was put in place right after the Iraq invasion started, so presumably it does not relate to Iraq but to the next adventure. (Especially since the information on Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" was much more definite and detailed in Cheney's unclassified version than in the classified one.) Why was it important to update the executive order? From the difference between the 1995 and 2003 orders, we may conclude that perhaps the administration has the following information that is being kept classified, which was not covered by the 1995 version but is now covered by the 2003 version: * Iran has weapons of mass destruction, at the very least chemical weapons; * Iran is planning to give those weapons to terrorist groups, in particular Hezbollah and al-Qaeda; * Iran has missiles that can reach U.S. forces in Iraq and that can be equipped with chemical warheads, and is targeting U.S. forces in Iraq with those weapons (which are WMD). What does the U.S. do in response? It follows point (A) above, i.e., drafts "military plans, weapons systems, or operations," which, of course, are classified. Again we can guess what the classified plans are by looking at the "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" [.pdf] that was revealed in September 2005. It envisions using nuclear weapons in scenarios such as: * Against "an adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S., multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations." * "To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD." * "[O]n adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons…." * "To respond to adversary-supplied WMD use by surrogates against U.S. and multinational forces or civilian populations." So there are many reasons to believe that the plan that Philip Giraldi (and Seymour Hersh, and William Arkin) talked about has been developed and is firmly in place – just as the plan to attack Iraq by air and invade it with ground forces was developed and firmly in place already four months before UN resolution 1441, as revealed by the New York Times on July 5, 2002. It is truly peculiar, given the strident rhetoric the administration has launched against Iran, that it has not publicly accused Iran of having WMD. Contrast this with the case of Iraq. There are, of course, many administration documents that make such statements [1], [2], [3]. The U.S. also accuses Hezbollah and various Palestinian groups of being surrogates of Iran and terrorist organizations, and the 9/11 commission has suggested that al-Qaeda has ties to Iran. It would be relatively straightforward to connect the dots and make a strong case to attack Iran, much stronger than the case for Iraq ever was. However, the administration is deliberately not "connecting the dots" publicly yet. Why? Because this time we are talking big guns, nuclear. If the administration did make its case public in advance, there would be enough time to check the veracity of the claims, and to consider whether they justify a nuclear strike on Iran. By keeping the information classified, the administration can prepare for the nuclear strike without being subject to public scrutiny. The dots will be connected after the bombing, too late for any debate. Why are all the people who know about this plan not telling? Donald Rumsfeld tells you why: "I think anyone who has a position where they touch a war plan has an obligation to not leak it to the press or anybody else, because it kills people." Sure enough. If you were told that leaking top-secret information on the Iran war plan could cause Iran to launch preemptive chemical missiles against U.S. forces in Iraq and kill thousands, or could unleash terrorist attacks against the United States, you would not do so. Not to mention the potentially severe penalties associated with leaking classified information. Administrative and criminal penalties apply to anyone who "has information relating to the national defense" and has "reason to believe it could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" and "willfully" transmits that information to "any person not entitled to receive it." But what if you knew of the nuke-Iran plan and sincerely believed that it would severely injure the United States, because nuking a non-nuclear country would turn the U.S. into a pariah nation in the civilized world? And that leaking information on this plan could help the United States avoid such a fate? The Nuremberg trials, commemorated this week, would not have existed if following the law of the land and orders from superiors were the only criteria to be considered under any circumstance. Principle IV of the Nuremberg Tribunal stated: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." Furthermore, the International Court of Justice has ruled that "the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law." What if you were in a position to leak the Iran plan, and you sincerely believed that using nuclear bombs against a non-nuclear country is a crime against humanity? What if you sincerely believed that using nuclear bombs, no matter how small, would break a 60-year-old taboo and unleash a chain reaction that could lead to the obliteration of humanity from the face of the earth? You would be facing a very difficult moral choice (see: [1] Episcopal Church Speaks on Nuclear Abolition & Disarmament http://www.episcopalpeacefellowship.org/4-Resources/InfoGuides/NA-CbF.htm [2] Lutheran Church: An Urgent Call-End the Nuclear Danger http://members.tripod.com/~lutheran_peace/urgentcall.html [3] 75 U.S. CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONDEMN U.S. POLICY OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE http://www.ccnr.org/pax_christi.html [4] On Nuclear Disarmament, A Jewish Perspective http://www.icpj.net/dwg/jewish_sermon.htm -------- u.n. UN atomic watchdog calls on Iran to show its nuclear activities are peaceful (UN Press releases) November 25, 2005 http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=16676&Cr=&Cr1= The head of the United Nations agency entrusted with curbing the spread of nuclear weapons has called on Iran to take speedy action to provide additional information and take other measures that are “indispensable” for ensuring that its nuclear programme is solely for peaceful purposes. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei welcomed recent Iranian actions, including the provision of additional documents, interviews with relevant individuals and further access after it was found to have broken its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by concealing its activities for nearly two decades. “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,” he told the opening session of a Board of Governors meeting in Vienna yesterday, citing the process that can provide nuclear weapons fuel. “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.” Iran's nuclear programme has been a matter of concern since 2003, when the IAEA uncovered its concealment of its activities. Iran insists its programme is for peaceful energy production only but some countries, including the United States, says it is part of an effort to produce nuclear weapons. At its last meeting in September the Board of Governors found that Iran’s NPT breaches were within the competence of the Security Council, which can impose sanctions, but did not refer the matter to the 15-member body. Mr. ElBaradei said the IAEA continued to monitor installations related to Iran´s enrichment programmes and had not observed any deviation from its voluntary suspension of enrichment activities, although it has continued to conduct uranium conversion activities at its Esfahan facility, which is 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,” he added. “I still believe that robust verification by the Agency, combined with active dialogue among all concerned parties, is the best way to move forward.” ---- IAEA puts off referring Iran to Security Council Friday, November25 , 2005 - © 2005IranMania.com http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=38078&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs LONDON, November 25 (IranMania) - The UN nuclear watchdog on Thursday put off taking Iran to the UN Security Council to give time for new Russian diplomacy but the United States warned that referral would happen soon if Tehran did not meet its non-proliferation obligations. The European Union, the lead nuclear negotiator with Iran, agreed to give Iran more time for talks, Peter Jenkins, British ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told reporters. Talks on a Russian proposal to allow Iran to conduct uranium enrichment -- but in Russia and not in Iran in order to keep Tehran from obtaining nuclear technology crucial to making atom bombs -- will now take center stage. Iran has refused to give up enrichment on its territory but Iranian ambassador to the IAEA Mohammad Akhondzadeh praised the "positive trend" over the "last couple of weeks" and said Iran was "prepared to follow the path of negotiation with other countries." The IAEA's35 -nation board of governors was meeting in Vienna to review progress since September24 , when it found Iran in non-compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a finding that requires eventual referral to the Security Council for possible international sanctions. EU-Iran talks collapsed in August when Iran broke a suspension of uranium conversion, the first step towards making enriched uranium, which can be used to fuel nuclear reactors and as the explosive core of atom bombs. Speaking for the EU presidency, Jenkins warned Iran against making any "unilateral moves" to increase its atomic activities. He said Britain "reserves ... the right" to convene a special session of the IAEA ahead of the next scheduled meeting in March to consider referral. German ambassador Herbert Honsowitz told the IAEA board that the concern over unilateral moves was "particularly true regarding threats to start enrichment. It must be absolutely clear that this would immediately put an end to our efforts." US ambassador Gregory Schulte said: "The board cannot and should not have unlimited patience if we seek to re-establish confidence about Iran's program." The United States backs the European Union call "to defer for a short period the required report to the Council." But "Iran must understand that the report to the Council is required and will be made at a time of this board's choosing," Schulte said. The EU and the United States charge that Iran is, despite its denials, using its drive towards atomic energy for electricity generation as a cover for developing nuclear weapons. Jenkins said the EU had "acceded to the request of several board members who have asked for more time for diplomatic dialogue on the future of Iran's nuclear program." Russia and China, which both have strong economic ties to Iran, oppose referral, as do non-aligned states, which insist on Iran's right, according to the NPT, to work on the nuclear fuel cycle. But Jenkins warned Iran needed "to implement the confidence-building measures" for which the IAEA has called, namely to cease uranium conversion work. Jenkins said "Iran should not conclude that this window of opportunity will remain open in all circumstances." He also said, in comments echoed by other Western ambassadors, that the EU "sees grounds for deep concern" that Iran "has admitted to having in its possession a document which was supplied" by an international black market and which is a guide to making the explosive core of an atom bomb. Akhondzadeh said this was "simple and non-sophisticated information which could be found in open literatures and on Internet" and that Iran's turning it over to the IAEA "is a clear indication of Iran's full transparency." After the IAEA board, "the action is elsewhere," a diplomat said, referring to plans by Russia and the EU negotiators, Britain, France and Germany, to meet with Iran on December 6, probably in Vienna or Moscow, to break the deadlock. Akhondzadeh told AFP his country was "optimistic" a December meeting would be held but said: "We have not received an invitation yet." US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said in Washington on Tuesday that the United States had made progress in mustering support from countries such as China and Russia to insist on a crackdown on Iran, even with a compromise solution. China called at the board meeting for Iran to cooperate with the IAEA and to cease conversion in order "to create favorable conditions for the resumption of negotiations," a diplomat told AFP. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- vermont Ratepayer vulnerability eyed as VY uprate review drags on By Kathryn Casa | Vermont Guardian posted November 25, 2005 http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/112005/VYUprateReview.shtml BRATTLEBORO — The clock is running on a $4.5 million deal aimed at shielding Vermont ratepayers from higher electricity prices that could result from outages related to a 20 percent power increase at Vermont Yankee. Half of the term of the three-year ratapayer protection plan has already lapsed, and Entergy may still be more than six months away from implementing its proposed uprate at the 530-megawatt Vernon reactor, leaving just a year of indemnity remaining once the power boost takes effect. The plant produces about one-third of Vermont’s total electricity supply. State officials say they are confident the deal will still offer adequate protection to ratepayers during the crucial year after the plant increases power, if the uprate is approved in the next six months. “We believe that a year at power uprate will be sufficient to also test the uprate itself,” said Sarah Hofmann, director for public advocacy in the Department of Public Service, the state’s top ratepayer advocate. The deal between Entergy and the Department of Public Service was aimed at protecting utility ratepayers from any glitches connected with the largest power boost allowed by federal regulators. At the time it was inked, in November 2003, negotiators expected that two years later the uprate would be a done deal and any related bugs would have been worked out. “The concept of the original agreement is very sound,” said energy analyst Rich Sedano of the Regulatory Assistance Project in Montpelier. “It is evident that some of the risk that was expected to be taken into account is not going to be fully realized unless the time frame is extended.” Smaller power boosts have been linked to equipment failures at four sister reactors in Illinois as long as three years after uprates of approximately 18 percent, according to Adam Slahor, a spokesman for Exelon Nuclear, which owns all four. Two of the plants were offline for 12 days this year as a result of the problems, he said. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is not expected to make a decision on the VY uprate before February. But three challenges to the proposal pending before a separate, quasi-judicial federal panel are not expected to be resolved before May, according to sources involved in the proceedings. Hofmann said the ratepayer protection plan was aimed at covering not only the period following the uprate, but also the period after modifications were made to the plant while it was still operating at its current license level. In exchange for about $20 million in total incentives, including the $4.5 million to cover unplanned outages, Entergy got the department’s support for the power boost. “We wanted to make sure we covered the modifications they made in the spring 2004 outage, because that’s when the biggest physical changes to the plant were made,” she said. “That’s when they did have a problem, and we will be able to cover that under the ratepayer protection plan.” The department and the state’s largest utilities are expected to announce a settlement with Entergy before the end of the year over the cost of a July 2004 transformer fire that shut down the reactor for 17 days, forcing Central Vermont Public Service and Green Mountain Power to spend more than $1.3 million on the volatile spot market for replacement power. The state and the utilities contend that the fire was caused by uprate modifications. Entergy says it was due to deferred maintenance. Although an official settlement is expected to sidestep the cause of the fire, sources say the as yet undisclosed settlement amount will come out of the $4.5 million set aside for uprate-related claims. Another VY outage last summer during a steamy regional heat wave sent the utilities back to the spot market, where they spent nearly $1 million for just three days of replacement power. That outage was not related to uprate modifications, but it highlights the utilities’ vulnerability to spot market pricing when stripped of their advantageous VY contract power. Central Vermont Public Service was buying power from VY at 3.95 cents per kilowatt hour in October, when the market price averaged 11.2 cents, said CVPS spokesman Steve Costello. “The contract has provided us with incredibly cheap power since it was done,” he said. “It is a phenomenal deal economically for ratepayers and taken as a whole it would have saved Vermonters millions of dollars … over the market price.” Entergy has spent about $60 million on improvements to the 33-year-old boiling water reactor in preparation for the proposed power boost, and stands to make millions each year selling the additional power it would produce. The most recent changes were done during a refueling outage last month, when the reactor core was loaded with the final installment of highly enriched fuel. But at the same, inspectors using powerful magnifying equipment to check the welds on some of the 20 cracks found in 2004 on the surface of the plant’s steam dryer discovered more than 40 previously undetected cracks. Federal regulators agreed with Entergy that the new findings did not compromise the integrity of the steam dryer, which removes water droplets from steam before it enters the turbines, and the plant was allowed to go back online. However, NRC inspectors said Entergy must perform additional analyses to prove that the dryer can withstand increased uprate-induced vibrations. In Illinois Quad Cities Unit 2 was offline for seven days this year, May 9-16, and Quad Cities Unit 1 shut down for five days after the steam dryers at both of those reactors developed cracks and in one case serious breakage, following uprates of nearly 18 percent in 2002, according to Adam Slahor, a spokesman for Exelon Nuclear, the largest nuclear power generator in the country. Cracks were also discovered in the steam dryers of two other Exelons plants, at Dresden 3 during an outage in October 2004, and at Dresden 2 the following month, said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Region I. Those plants were uprated in 2002 and 2001 respectively. Slahor said the Dresden units have not been offline as a result of the cracking. Steam dryers are not considered safety components of boiling water reactors like Vermont Yankee and the Illinois plants, but experts say fragmentation of the component could complicate a safety systems if a piece of the dryer lodges in a steam line or valve. Unprecedented challenges to the VY uprate application from the state and a grassroots citizens group, the Brattleboro-based New England Coalition, have slowed the NRC’s average one-year approval period. Vermont Yankee’s is the only one of more than 100 uprates, including 13 extended power uprates of between 8 and 20 percent, in which the NRC has granted formal intervenor status to parties questioning the application. While Entergy awaits a federal decision on its application, also pending is a certificate of public good from the state Public Service Board based on the uprate’s economic benefit to the Vermonters. The board has yet to rule on whether a 2004 NRC inspection of the plant meets the state’s criteria for an independent engineering inspection. -------- MILITARY -------- arms Texas explosives company coming to NM Clay Holtzman NMBW Staff November 25, 2005 Albuquerque Business Journal http://albuquerque.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2005/11/28/story1.html A Texas company that has developed a powerful alternative to conventional lead-based munitions says it will commercialize and market its explosive compound through a spin-off company it plans to establish in New Mexico. During a recent visit here, executives from Nanoenergetics Inc. said New Mexico's research and testing assets, economic incentives, growing private investment scene and accessible political leaders make it an ideal place to establish their new startup. Nanoenergetics is being spun off from Austin-based Nanotechnologies Inc. which through its history has garnered about $18 million in private funding. Nanotechnologies, which employs 26 people, has more made more than $1 million a year in revenue for the past three years, Company officials say Nanoenergetics, which is currently hunting for about $1 million in venture capital to help fund its New Mexico start-up could employ up to 30 people in New Mexico and might eventually establish a production facility here. Nanoenergetics says it already has a working prototype for its explosives compound. "This state provides great infrastructure for us," says Dennis Wilson, chief technology officer and the man who will lead Nanoenergetics once it is established here in early 2006. "The plan is an office in Albuquerque and research and test facility in Socorro." That infrastructure includes the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, which sits on more than 40 square miles of land near Socorro, about an hour south of Albuquerque. "There's nothing equivalent to Socorro's test and evaluation capabilities in Texas or, in my opinion, any other state," Wilson says. Nanoenergetics intends to market its proprietary reactive compound as a lead-free alternative to munitions and explosives now used by the defense and commercial high-explosives industry. The compound can be used in anything from small arms and large-shell munitions to pyrotechnic displays, airbag initiators and detonators. But its biggest market may be the military. Conventional weapon projectiles, made out of lead or denser depleted uranium, rely on their own mass and velocity to inflict damage with kinetic energy. Nanoenergetics says when its compound is placed within the core of a projectile, it provides a release of chemical energy, adding more pop to a conventional projectile's impact. Currently the company is working under a $250,000 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) contract to develop wall-breaching rounds that can be fired from weapons like a rocket launcher. Nanoenergetics is also working on a $40,000 feasibility study with the Army to make an explosives neutralizing round for improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the weapon of choice for Iraqi insurgents. The company also recently submitted a proposal to the Department of Justice in conjunction with New Mexico Tech to develop a similar anit-IED round for law enforcement. During a recent visit here, executives from Nanoenergetics Inc. said New Mexico's research and testing assets, economic incentives, growing private investment scene and accessible political leaders make it an ideal place to establish their new startup. Nanoenergetics is being spun off from Austin-based Nanotechnologies Inc. which through its history has garnered about $18 million in private funding. Nanotechnologies, which employs 26 people, has more made more than $1 million a year in revenue for the past three years, Company officials say Nanoenergetics, which is currently hunting for about $1 million in venture capital to help fund its New Mexico start-up could employ up to 30 people in New Mexico and might eventually establish a production facility here. Nanoenergetics says it already has a working prototype for its explosives compound. "This state provides great infrastructure for us," says Dennis Wilson, chief technology officer and the man who will lead Nanoenergetics once it is established here in early 2006. "The plan is an office in Albuquerque and research and test facility in Socorro." That infrastructure includes the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, which sits on more than 40 square miles of land near Socorro, about an hour south of Albuquerque. "There's nothing equivalent to Socorro's test and evaluation capabilities in Texas or, in my opinion, any other state," Wilson says. Nanoenergetics intends to market its proprietary reactive compound as a lead-free alternative to munitions and explosives now used by the defense and commercial high-explosives industry. The compound can be used in anything from small arms and large-shell munitions to pyrotechnic displays, airbag initiators and detonators. But its biggest market may be the military. Conventional weapon projectiles, made out of lead or denser depleted uranium, rely on their own mass and velocity to inflict damage with kinetic energy. Nanoenergetics says when its compound is placed within the core of a projectile, it provides a release of chemical energy, adding more pop to a conventional projectile's impact. Currently the company is working under a $250,000 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) contract to develop wall-breaching rounds that can be fired from weapons like a rocket launcher. Nanoenergetics is also working on a $40,000 feasibility study with the Army to make an explosives neutralizing round for improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the weapon of choice for Iraqi insurgents. The company also recently submitted a proposal to the Department of Justice in conjunction with New Mexico Tech to develop a similar anit-IED round for law enforcement. According to the company, the total U.S. market for its compound, including airbag ignitors, pyrotechnics, explosive detonators, ammunition primers and a couple of others, is more than $500 million. The company licenses intellectual property from Los Alamos National Laboratory and Nanoenergetics officials cited support by LANL as another reason they decided to place their new company in New Mexico. Part of the effort to convince Nanoenergetics to locate in New Mexico came from nonprofit business assistance group, Technology Ventures Corp. (TVC). In 2004, Nanoenergetics was a presenter looking for investor money at TVC's annual Equity Capital Symposium. TVC's symposium showcases companies that spin off from New Mexico's federal or university laboratory systems. George Friberg, TVC senior director and manager of Nanoenergetics' presentation to equity investors in 2004, says he's not surprised the company wants to move to New Mexico. Although TVC's focus is on assisting spinout companies based here, and not recruiting out of state businesses, Friberg says TVC's existing relationship with Nanoenergetics gave the company a familiar face to turn to after it decided to consider New Mexico. "We never lost touch with them from the very first minute they came to us," Friberg says. During their trip to New Mexico, Nanoenergetics executives met with officials from Los Alamos National Laboratory, TVC, New Mexico Tech, area economic development groups and at least one venture fund. choltzman@bizjournals.com | 348-8324 -------- OTHER -------- environment Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Highest in 650,000 Years WASHINGTON, DC, November 25, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2005/2005-11-25-04.asp Levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are the highest they have been in 650,000 years, according to the first in-depth analysis of tiny air bubbles trapped in an ice core from East Antarctica. In two articles analyzing air from the ice core published in the journal "Science" today, European researchers have extended the greenhouse gas record back to 650,000 years before the present, adding 210,000 years to previous records. One study chronicles the stable relationship between climate and the carbon cycle during the Pleistocene Era, 390,000 to 650,000 years before the present. The second one documents atmospheric methane and nitrous oxide levels over the same period. The analysis shows that today’s rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, at 380 parts per million by volume, is now 27 percent higher than its highest recorded level during the last 650,000 years, said "Science" author Thomas Stocker of the Physics Institute of the University of Bern, in Bern, Switzerland, who serves as the corresponding author for both papers. “We have added another piece of information showing that the timescales on which humans have changed the composition of the atmosphere are extremely short compared to the natural time cycles of the climate system,” Stocker said. This 210,000 year extension of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane records, encompassing two full glacial cycles, should help scientists better understand climate change and the nature of the current warm period on Earth. The record may also aid researchers in reducing uncertainty in predictions of future climate change and help to clarify when humans began significantly changing the balance of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere. A long term research effort known as the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica, or EPICA, recovered the new ice core from a site in East Antarctica called EPICA Dome C. The EPICA Dome C ice core contains hundreds of thousands of years worth of atmospheric air samples within small bubbles trapped in the ice. The air bubbles form when snowflakes fall, and they contain a record of global greenhouse gas concentrations. The new ice core record described in the two "Science" papers provides some overlap with a similar record from the Vostok ice core – now, the second longest ice core record -- and extends the Vostok record by 210,000 years. Ed Brook, a professor of geosciences at Oregon State University, who analyzed the studies in the same issue of "Science" called the research "an amazing accomplishment we would not have thought possible" as recently as 10 years ago." "Not long ago we thought that previous ice studies which go back about 500,000 years might be the best we could obtain," said Brook, who is also the co-chair of the International Partnerships in Ice Coring Sciences, a group that is helping to plan future ice core research efforts around the world. "Now we have a glimpse into the past of up to 650,000 years, and we believe it may be possible to go as much as one million years or more," Brook said. "This will give us a fuller picture of Earth's past climates, the way they changed and fluctuated, and the forces that caused the changes. We'll be studying this new data for years." "The levels of primary greenhouse gases such as methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide are up dramatically since the Industrial Revolution, at a speed and magnitude that the Earth has not seen in hundreds of thousands of years," Brook said. "There is now no question this is due to human influence." Analysis of the older cores just removed from Antarctica, Brook said, are consistent with some of the quick changes in methane and carbon dioxide levels that are related to abrupt climate change. It also appears that the natural climate cycles in the distant past – the development and retreat of Ice Ages, for instance – were smaller in magnitude and had less fluctuation in atmospheric gases than what the Earth is now experiencing. There are critical questions that work of this type may help answer, researchers say such as the relationship between increasing levels of greenhouse gases and global warming. There are also concerns that the Earth's climate may have changed very abruptly at times in the past, in complex interactions between the atmosphere, ocean currents and ice sheets. Past studies of gases trapped in Greenland and Antarctic ice cores have suggested that Earth's temperature can sometimes change amazingly fast, warming as much as 15 degrees in some regions within a couple of decades. At the same time, there are concerns about the change of major ocean currents, such as those in the North Atlantic Ocean, that are responsible for the comparatively mild climate of much of Europe. If that "thermohaline circulation pattern" were to abruptly shut down, as has happened at times in the past, it could plunge much of the European continent into a climate more closely resembling that of central Canada. Brook says continuing research will help to address many of these questions. The 17 nation committee he co-chairs is considering a very deep ice coring project in Antarctica that might provide a record of atmospheric gases 1.2 million years ago, or even further back in time. ---- 700 Cyclists to Make Metro Manila Run for Clean Air Festival MANILA, Philippines, November 25, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2005/2005-11-25-02.asp At least 700 cyclists are expected to bike through five cities in Metro Manila on Saturday as part of a Clean Air Festival that is meant to dramatize November as Clean Air Month across the country. Most of the cyclists are employees of the Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) or belong to local and national groups. The journey starts from the Quezon Memorial Circle. They will then make a turn to EDSA, the Epifanio de los Santos Avenue, a main highway in Metro Manila, and then proceed to the Bonifacio Monument in Caloocan. From there, they will head back to Quezon City and on to the cities of Mandaluyong, Makati and Pasay, a ride scheduled to cover 55 kilometers (32 miles). Called Fun Bike for Clean Air, the ride aims to promote the bicycle as an alternative, energy efficient and environmentally friendly mode of transportation as well as allow for camaraderie among the different biking groups. The United Cyclists Association of the Philippines, North EDSA Cyclists, HDLC Bikers and the 70-man DENR Bikers will be represented on the ride. DENR Secretary Mike Defensor says the event "will involve a series of awareness-raising activities on clean air programs nationwide being pushed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo." Last year, Secretary Defensor introduced the Urban Greening Program establishing more "green zones” in cities. His technique is to use ornamentals and different species of "balled” mature trees to create an "instant forest” along major thoroughfares, he says. "Greening the metropolis serves not only for aesthetic purposes but more so it can contribute in minimizing air pollution, for trees act as a sponge by sequestering carbon in the atmosphere while releasing breathable oxygen." Yet still, Defensor is disturbed by the amount of air pollution generated in Manila and the country. He says, "The alarming increase of pollution level in the metropolis that threaten the health of the nation especially that of the children, led us to devise programs and different approaches that will encourage our countrymen to participate in our advocacy of cleaning the air." "The participation of the different sectors of society - environmental advocates, youth and academe, private and business sectors, nongovernment organizations and local government units plays an important role in the realization of our environmental campaigns," the secretary said. Fun Bike for Clean Air cyclists will distribute flyers about clean air along their route and during brief programs in pit stops designated by participating local or city governments. Simultaneously, a Clean Air Exhibit will be opened to the public at the Quezon Memorial Circle highlighting various technologies for cleaning the air. Some 3,500 young people intend to form a human chain around the Quezon Memorial Circle. Students from - the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, University of Santo Tomas, Asia-Pacific College, National College of Business and Arts, Quezon City Polytechnic University, Centro Escolar University, Colegio de San Juan de Letran, Far Eastern University, AMA Computer Learning Center, and Quezon City Scholarship and Youth Development - are mobilizing for the human chain event. The same young people will release butterflies during the program capping the Clean Air Festival. They are urging youth "to act and help stop air pollution and promote urban greening in communities." The exhibit aims to emphasize the role played by the private sector in informing the general public of the different ways to take part in clean air programs. The festival is supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development Energy and Clean Air Project. The Partnership for Clean Air is a multi-sectoral alliance of individuals, public and private sector organizations and government agencies, that aims to increase public involvement in the implementation of clean air programs in Metro Manila. Its creation is an offshoot of a multi-sectoral public information campaign planning undertaken by the Metro Manila Air Quality Improvement Sector Development Program of the Asian Development Bank. The Partnership for Clean Air is also the Philippine Representative of the Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities. According to the World Bank's 2000 Annual Review, in Manila alone more than 4,000 people die each year because of air pollution. The mortality figure is the third highest for a city in the east Asian region after Beijing and Jakarta. Beside the deaths, 90,000 other Manila residents suffer from severe chronic bronchitis, costing the government seven percent of its gross domestic product in terms of health costs, the Bank said, citing statistics from the World Health Organization, which did pollution and health studies in 126 countries the previous year. ---- Poisoned River Shows Dark Side of China's Boom Story by Emma Graham-Harrison REUTERS CHINA: November 25, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33655/newsDate/25-Nov-2005/story.htm BEIJING - As dead fish floated down Harbin's poisoned river and queues of residents waited for safe water in the northern Chinese city, top leaders met in Beijing to discuss tackling the country's "grim" environmental record. Years of promoting economic growth at almost any price, both to tackle poverty and ensure the stability the Communist Party believes will help it stay in power, have sent environmental conditions plunging even as living standards rose. Harbin's troubles were caused by an explosion at a petrochemical plant up-river, which spilt cancer-causing toxins into the water, but is symptomatic of wider problems. China's water is dirty or vanishing -- 70 percent of its rivers are contaminated, over a third of the country is plagued by acid rain, and in the past 50 years it has lost more than 1,000 lakes, the official Xinhua agency says. Its skies are choked too. Home to seven of the world's 10 most-polluted cities, its urban smog causes over 400,000 early deaths a year, the International Energy Agency says. Factory and power stations often ignore environmental rules in the hunt for profits or market share, pumping effluent into rivers or skies, while even those who fit equipment to process waste sometimes leave it unused to cut costs. Others run equipment for too long, risking accidents from human error or faltering machinery. This may be particularly tempting in the petrochemical sector, which supplies the building blocks of everything from fertilizer to drugs, and is racing to keep up with demand. Imports are high and multinational firms like Germany's BASF are pouring billions of dollars into Chinese plants. "The Chinese system has its standards to follow and they argue that these are comparable to international levels," said analyst Victor Shum at Purvin & Gertz in Singapore. "I think this is true, but the question is how closely on a day-to-day basis you follow those rules. Where you're under a lot of pressure there may be a temptation to cut corners." Apart from the risk of damaging spills, the petrochemical industry is one of several energy-intensive sectors which are consuming vast amounts of dirty-burning coal. GREEN GROWTH? As problems spread, people once content with earning more money are now worrying about quality of life. In some cases that has led to the social unrest and economic troubles Beijing is so keen to stave off with growth. This summer hundreds of angry farmers rioted in eastern Zhejiang province about effluent from a pharmaceutical plant they said had ruined crops. A top environment official has said pollution costs China 8-15 percent of its gross domestic product. Even efforts to keep the population fed after decades of shortage last century -- exacerbated by a lingering Maoist desire for self-sufficiency -- are chased in an unsustainable way. "China's use of fertilisers per hectare is almost three-fold higher than the global average ...(which) creates a large number of environmental problems," the OECD said in a recent report. The State Council, or cabinet, this week set the ambitious target that by 2020, the country's environmental quality should have improved significantly, and said the current situation was "grim", Xinhua reported. But Beijing also aims to quadruple GDP from 2000 levels by 2020, and unless it can enforce sharp changes to current consumption, construction and manufacturing habits, the economic and environmental targets may be hard to reconcile.