NucNews - December 10, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety Groups seek more info about nuclear mishaps By Christopher Smith The Associated Press Saturday, December 10, 2005 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002675716_nearmisses10e.html Workers at the Idaho National Laboratory prepare to enter a controlled area where radioactive waste is being removed from burial pits and shipped to a permanent disposal site out of state. BOISE, Idaho — When a propane line sprang a leak last month at a federal nuclear-research complex in the Idaho desert, hundreds of workers were evacuated and officials made regular announcements on the status of the danger until the problem was fixed hours later. But dozens of smaller, "near-miss" episodes occur each year without public notification at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), where the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) wants to begin producing plutonium-238 for the first time in decades and where Congress just appropriated $40 million to begin developing an experimental nuclear power reactor. Instead, details of those minor accidents or procedural oversights are logged in an Energy Department database, the records of which were recently obtained by The Associated Press through the Freedom of Information Act. In the past year alone, there have been 21 cases of INL workers accidentally contaminated with radioactive material; in all cases, the exposure was classified as negligible. In one case, an employee's car and home were searched after officials feared Europium-154 found on the person's overcoat had been carried off the high-security nuclear-research compound. In one instance, a few bolts that anchored the seismic braces of a 38-foot-tall heat exchanger in the Advanced Test Reactor to stabilize it during an earthquake were found to have rattled out of their threads. All 180 bolts were found to be too short to properly secure the braces. And an analysis of the amount of uranium that could safely be stored in a lab failed to take into account that the radioactive material was in powder form, not solid, posing a much higher health risk if spilled than originally estimated. All of the incidents were minor and INL officials say none posed a grave risk beyond the boundaries of the 890-square-mile test compound, but they were documented and investigated in an effort to prevent more serious problems in the future. Near-misses Some recent mishaps at the Idaho National Laboratory, according to Energy Department records obtained by The Associated Press: March 2005: 15 drums of spent nuclear fuel were assigned an incorrect transportation rating because an expandable rubber plug in the cans was not taken into account in calculating if the drum could safely contain the material. April 2004 — May 2005: Due to perspiration wicking contamination through protective clothing or inexperience in fastening protective layers, 21 cases of radiological contamination occurred, including 10 cases of skin contact with radioactive material. In all cases, the amount of exposure was classified as negligible. June 2005: Workers discovered three seismic support bolts securing the heat exchanger in the Advanced Test Reactor had vibrated out of their anchor plates because they were too short to properly fasten. All 180 bolts were subsequently replaced. June 2005: A radiological survey of an employee's home was conducted after a worker exiting an INL facility was found to be wearing a coat contaminated with radioactive Europium-154. The source of the contamination was not determined, and there was no sign of contamination in the employee's home or car. June 2005: Workers discovered that canisters of depleted and natural uranium being stored in a building contained the powder form of the radioactive material, not the solid form as had been assumed when calculating the potential danger from a spill. The amount of material exceeded the maximum allowed risk and was removed. August 2005: The state of Utah notified INL of 33 violations for incomplete shipping labels on low-level radioactive waste sent from Idaho to a private hazardous waste dump near Salt Lake City. The mistake was classified as administrative in nature with no safety significance. The Associated Press "The intent of the system is to find, report and fix problems while your problems are small," said Bob Stallman, senior operations and safety officer at INL. "That's one of the reasons there are so many reports in the system. Our threshold for reporting is quite low because we want to know the small problems that are occurring." But the public has a right to know about all accidents at the site, not just the big ones, say leaders of environmental groups who monitor the remote eastern Idaho facility. The Snake River Alliance, Environmental Defense Institute and Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free asked DOE in a Nov. 20 letter to put the so-called "occurrence reports" online for easy access by the public over instead of being released only in response to written request. "Right now, the public operates with blinders on and only responds to incidents that the government thinks we need to know about," said Jeremy Maxand, director of the Snake River Alliance. "If you take one of these incidents and combine it with the right circumstances, you could have a serious situation." While DOE requires written requests from the public to disclose the reports, it sends copies to the state's Division of INL Oversight and Radiation Control each week. The federal government also notifies the state any time INL's radiological assistance team is deployed outside the boundaries of the nuclear reservation. "We try to strike a balance between the safety of having people well-informed versus having people who might want to do us harm well-informed," said Kathleen Trever, Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne's coordinator for INL oversight. "As you can imagine, the pendulum at the moment is more on the side of keeping information confidential or less readily available." J.D. Wulfhorst, a University of Idaho rural sociologist who surveyed Idaho residents' attitudes toward the nuclear site in 2003, said many people who live in eastern Idaho are tied to INL economically and socially and have a higher level of trust in the department and its contractors than people outside the immediate area. "That's not because they have sold out, but because they know and have experienced the different safety mechanisms that are in place," he said. "It's all very normal for people who live around large, complex installations like those operated by the military or Energy Department who deal with that risk on a daily basis and have familiarity with it." Other residents in Idaho may be more skeptical that the federal government would promptly alert the public to potential environmental contamination or health hazards because they've been influenced by critics and a Cold War legacy of the Energy Department neglecting public health. "There are special interest groups that have targeted the site and have educated the general population on certain elements, for better or worse, and that has created a distrust whether the agencies are disclosing all the information," Wulfhorst said. Lack of easy access to INL accident reports adds to the skepticism some have that the federal government may not be forthcoming about operations at the facility, said Maxand. "If they want to tout INL as the safest place on the planet for these programs, they should have as much transparency as possible," he said. "More people are paying attention to what's going on out there and there should be no reason why this kind of safety performance information is not made readily available." -------- britain U.K. accused of supplying nuclear component to Israel in 1950s By The Associated Press 10/12/2005 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/656019.html Two lawmakers have accused the British government of a cover-up for refusing to admit that Britain helped launch Israel's nuclear program in 1959 by secretly selling a batch of heavy water - a key ingredient in producing weapons-grade materials. The British Broadcasting Corp. first reported the allegations - contained in previously classified documents - in August, but Foreign Office minister Kim Howells swiftly denied the claims to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Howells' account "simply flies in the face of the known facts, now that we have access to previously classified documents," lawmaker Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman from the small centrist Liberal Democrat party, told the BBC's Newsnight program late Friday. Jeremy Corbyn, a lawmaker from the governing Labor Party who wants a committee of lawmakers to investigate, told the program that Howell's statement is "simply untrue." "Right back to the late 1950s we were a party to the transfer of nuclear technology to Israel," he said. "We were party to the development of a nuclear facility in Israel that could and has been used for the manufacture of nuclear weapons." According to previously classified papers, the 20 tons of heavy water were part of a consignment that Britain bought from Norway but later decided was surplus to requirements. The documents show how officials presented the transaction as a straight sale from Norway to Israel. The documents reveal, however, that the heavy water was transported from a British port in Israeli ships in two shipments, half in June 1959 and half a year later. There was no immediate comment from the British Foreign Office. Heavy water is used both as a reactor coolant and as a moderator in the process of turning natural uranium into weapons-grade plutonium. -------- canada What choice does Ontario really have? All the options seem to have downside Dec. 10, 2005. 01:00 AM IAN URQUHART Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1134169812547&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467 The report of the Ontario Power Authority — all 1,100 pages of it —landed with a thud at Queen's Park yesterday and launched the province on a new nuclear journey. In its long-awaited assessment of Ontario's future electricity needs, the power authority said nuclear power should definitely remain a major part of the supply mix. And with today's nuclear reactors reaching the end of their operational lifespans within 15 to 20 years, that means the province should soon begin the process of building new nuclear facilities. The power authority's report is just advisory. The final decision rests with the government, which yesterday pledged full public consultation before making up its mind. But the consultation process is just eyewash. Premier Dalton McGuinty went on record 11 weeks ago saying that if the authority recommends new nuclear power, "We are prepared to go ahead with (it)." And the environmentalists and anti-nuclear activists have already begun raising hell about it. The Sierra Club was first out of the gate yesterday with a press release calling the nuclear option "insanity." But, really, what choice does Ontario have following a summer of brownouts and near blackouts? Let's consider the options: # Keep burning coal. The government is committed to shutting the coal-fired power plants by 2009. While coal is relatively cheap power, there is a huge hidden health cost. The coal-fired plants produce pollution equivalent to that produced by 6.1 million cars. Closing the plants will also go a long way toward meeting our Kyoto commitments and give us the moral high ground in negotiations with the U.S. about cross-boundary pollution. What about "clean coal" technology? The environmentalists say that is an oxymoron. # Convert to natural gas. Gas is much less polluting than coal, but it is also much more expensive. Over the past five years, the price for gas has risen five-fold and made it less competitive than coal or even nuclear power. Another advantage to this fuel was that gas-fired plants could be built close to market, thereby reducing transmission costs. But doubt has recently been cast on this supposed advantage as NIMBYism has forced cancellation or delay of proposed gas-fired plants in the Greater Toronto Area. # Import hydroelectric power. There are proposals in the works to import power from new dams planned in Manitoba and Labrador. But while the power itself would be relatively cheap, the cost of new transmission lines would be formidable, especially for the Manitoba project. The Sierra Club was first to issue a press release calling the nuclear option `insanity' Another complication is that the lines from Manitoba would cross First Nations territory. As for the Labrador project, it will require complex negotiations among three governments — Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland. # Invest in renewable energy, primarily wind power. At first glance, this seems to be a viable option. One estimate suggests wind could generate potentially 630,000 megawatts of power, or more than 20 times our current capacity. But 95 per cent of this potential is north of the 50th parallel — too far from market. Even where potential wind farms are near existing transmission lines, they cannot be counted on for base-load power because wind comes and goes. # Rely on conservation, or demand management. This is the option favoured by the environmentalists and the New Democratic Party. They say the government's 5 per cent goal for saving electricity through conservation is far too modest and point to examples in the United States, notably California, where much greater savings have been achieved. But the problem with such comparisons is that they often overlook the key factor in any conservation program: the price of electricity. The higher the price, the greater the incentive for consumers and businesses to conserve. California's electricity rates are roughly double those in Ontario. To which the environmentalists say: fine, raise the price. That is already happening under the Liberal government, but we are still a long way from California-like rates. The concern is that, if we were to increase rates more rapidly, it would be at the cost of tens of thousands of jobs in the manufacturing sector, particularly energy-intensive industries like paper, steel and chemicals. Which brings us full circle to nuclear power. Is there not a downside to this option? Of course, and the power authority enumerates some of the negatives in its report, including enormous cost overruns in past projects, ongoing maintenance problems, and the still unresolved question of what to do with nuclear waste. The authority expresses the opinion that changes in nuclear technology should make new plants "simpler to operate, cheaper to run, and better performing." That leaves the waste — the Achilles heel of nuclear power. Despite years of studies and tests, we still don't have a permanent storage facility for it. Both the government and the nuclear industry should make sure they have an answer to the waste question before breaking ground on a new reactor. -------- u.n. Referring Nuke-Threats to Security Council by Gordon Prather, December 10, 2005 Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8239 Last month the New York Times reported that unnamed senior "intelligence officials" had told them that – as part of a campaign to increase international pressure on Iran – they had "briefed" International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed El-Baradei and senior staff in mid-July on some of the sensitive "intelligence" they had gleaned from a "stolen Iranian laptop computer." They presented what they claimed was the strongest "evidence" yet that Iran must be developing lightweight compact nukes for its Shahab ballistic missile, which could "reach Israel." However, "sources close to the IAEA" said what they had been briefed on appeared to be aerodynamic design work for a ballistic missile reentry vehicle, not a nuclear warhead. Furthermore, according to David Albright, a sometime consultant to the IAEA, the information on the "stolen Iranian laptop" is all about reentry vehicles and does not even mention "nuclear" or "nuclear warhead." The distinction between "reentry vehicle" and "warhead" is all important. During the Iran-Iraq war in the late 1980s, each side launched 300 to 400 Scud ballistic missiles – carrying high explosive warheads – at each other's cities. The Scud is a liquid-fueled single-stage missile. The entire missile – containing the warhead – reenters the atmosphere, frequently tumbling end-over-end, breaking up into several pieces. It is a very expensive, very inaccurate delivery vehicle for high-explosives. Since then the Iranians have been attempting to develop a super-Scud ballistic missile wherein a cone-shaped "reentry" vehicle – in which the warhead is protected from the intense shock-heating of reentry into the atmosphere – detaches from the missile in flight. A properly designed reentry vehicle can deliver a warhead with great accuracy. Of course, if you've got a lightweight compact nuke capable of being delivered by ballistic missile you don't need great accuracy. So, whether the "briefing" unnamed senior intelligence officials made to El-Baradei and other IAEA officials convinced them that Iran had a relatively sophisticated ballistic missile reentry vehicle development program is irrelevant. Why? The IAEA has two missions: (a) to facilitate the international transfer of nuclear-related technologies and materials, and (b) to ensure – insofar as is possible – that "source and special nuclear materials" are not used in furtherance of some military purpose. Under the Iranian Safeguards Agreement – in force since 1974 – Iran agreed to allow IAEA inspectors to satisfy themselves that no amount of Iranian uranium or plutonium – however physically or chemically transformed – is being used or has been used "in furtherance of any military purpose." However, under that agreement the IAEA is only authorized to inspect facilities and activities that Iran has "declared." In 2003, at our insistence and at the urging of the IAEA Board, Iran signed an Additional Protocol to their Safeguards Agreement. The Iranian Parliament has yet to ratify it, but, pending ratification, the Iranians volunteered to cooperate with the IAEA as if the Additional Protocol was in force. Among other things, the Iranians have allowed El-Baradei to inspect any Iranian facility he had good reason to suspect housed materials and/or activities that should have been "declared," but hadn't been. At our insistence, the Iranians even allowed El-Baradei to visit certain Iranian military research and development sites at Parchin and elsewhere where we suspected the Iranians were doing something we don't want them to do. Maybe we're right. Maybe they are. But, as of now, El-Baradei has yet to find any indication that Iran is or has been engaged in any activity involving the use of source or special nuclear materials in furtherance of any military purpose. In any case, unless El-Baradei finds materials and/or activities at those sites that should have been Safeguarded – but were not – then under the IAEA Statute he is prohibited from telling us or anyone else what he does find there. For all those "senior intelligence officials" know, El-Baradei may already have known about the Iranian ballistic missile reentry vehicle development program. In any case, whether Iran has such a ballistic missile program or not is none of the IAEA's business. In fact, as the 24 September 2005 resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors explicitly acknowledged, these are "questions that are within the competence of the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security." So, since the IAEA Board won't, Condi-baby is threatening to take Iran's suspected nuke-missile program directly to the Security Council herself. That might not be a good idea. Some Council member might note that Israel almost certainly has lightweight compact nukes mounted on ballistic missiles capable of "reaching Iran." ---- Mohamed ElBaradei – Nobel Lecture Nobel Lecture, Oslo, December 10, 2005. http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2005/elbaradei-lecture-en.html Your Majesties, Your Royal Highness, Honourable Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen. The International Atomic Energy Agency and I are humbled, proud, delighted and above all strengthened in our resolve by this most worthy of honours. My sister-in-law works for a group that supports orphanages in Cairo. She and her colleagues take care of children left behind by circumstances beyond their control. They feed these children, clothe them and teach them to read. At the International Atomic Energy Agency, my colleagues and I work to keep nuclear materials out of the reach of extremist groups. We inspect nuclear facilities all over the world, to be sure that peaceful nuclear activities are not being used as a cloak for weapons programmes. My sister-in-law and I are working towards the same goal, through different paths: the security of the human family. But why has this security so far eluded us? I believe it is because our security strategies have not yet caught up with the risks we are facing. The globalization that has swept away the barriers to the movement of goods, ideas and people has also swept with it barriers that confined and localized security threats. A recent United Nations High-Level Panel identified five categories of threats that we face: 1. Poverty, Infectious Disease, and Environmental Degradation; 2. Armed Conflict – both within and among states; 3. Organized Crime; 4. Terrorism; and 5. Weapons of Mass Destruction. These are all 'threats without borders' – where traditional notions of national security have become obsolete. We cannot respond to these threats by building more walls, developing bigger weapons, or dispatching more troops. Quite to the contrary. By their very nature, these security threats require primarily multinational cooperation. But what is more important is that these are not separate or distinct threats. When we scratch the surface, we find them closely connected and interrelated. We are 1,000 people here today in this august hall. Imagine for a moment that we represent the world's population. These 200 people on my left would be the wealthy of the world, who consume 80 per cent of the available resources. And these 400 people on my right would be living on an income of less than $2 per day. This underprivileged group of people on my right is no less intelligent or less worthy than their fellow human beings on the other side of the aisle. They were simply born into this fate. In the real world, this imbalance in living conditions inevitably leads to inequality of opportunity, and in many cases loss of hope. And what is worse, all too often the plight of the poor is compounded by and results in human rights abuses, a lack of good governance, and a deep sense of injustice. This combination naturally creates a most fertile breeding ground for civil wars, organized crime, and extremism in its different forms. In regions where conflicts have been left to fester for decades, countries continue to look for ways to offset their insecurities or project their 'power'. In some cases, they may be tempted to seek their own weapons of mass destruction, like others who have preceded them. * * * * * * * Ladies and Gentlemen. Fifteen years ago, when the Cold War ended, many of us hoped for a new world order to emerge. A world order rooted in human solidarity – a world order that would be equitable, inclusive and effective. But today we are nowhere near that goal. We may have torn down the walls between East and West, but we have yet to build the bridges between North and South – the rich and the poor. Consider our development aid record. Last year, the nations of the world spent over $1 trillion on armaments. But we contributed less than 10 per cent of that amount – a mere $80 billion – as official development assistance to the developing parts of the world, where 850 million people suffer from hunger. My friend James Morris heads the World Food Programme, whose task it is to feed the hungry. He recently told me, "If I could have just 1 per cent of the money spent on global armaments, no one in this world would go to bed hungry." It should not be a surprise then that poverty continues to breed conflict. Of the 13 million deaths due to armed conflict in the last ten years, 9 million occurred in sub-Saharan Africa, where the poorest of the poor live. Consider also our approach to the sanctity and value of human life. In the aftermath of the September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, we all grieved deeply, and expressed outrage at this heinous crime – and rightly so. But many people today are unaware that, as the result of civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 3.8 million people have lost their lives since 1998. Are we to conclude that our priorities are skewed, and our approaches uneven? * * * * * * * Ladies and Gentlemen. With this 'big picture' in mind, we can better understand the changing landscape in nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. There are three main features to this changing landscape: the emergence of an extensive black market in nuclear material and equipment; the proliferation of nuclear weapons and sensitive nuclear technology; and the stagnation in nuclear disarmament. Today, with globalization bringing us ever closer together, if we choose to ignore the insecurities of some, they will soon become the insecurities of all. Equally, with the spread of advanced science and technology, as long as some of us choose to rely on nuclear weapons, we continue to risk that these same weapons will become increasingly attractive to others. I have no doubt that, if we hope to escape self-destruction, then nuclear weapons should have no place in our collective conscience, and no role in our security. To that end, we must ensure – absolutely – that no more countries acquire these deadly weapons. We must see to it that nuclear-weapon states take concrete steps towards nuclear disarmament. And we must put in place a security system that does not rely on nuclear deterrence. * * * * * * * Are these goals realistic and within reach? I do believe they are. But then three steps are urgently required. First, keep nuclear and radiological material out of the hands of extremist groups. In 2001, the IAEA together with the international community launched a worldwide campaign to enhance the security of such material. Protecting nuclear facilities. Securing powerful radioactive sources. Training law enforcement officials. Monitoring border crossings. In four years, we have completed perhaps 50 per cent of the work. But this is not fast enough, because we are in a race against time. Second, tighten control over the operations for producing the nuclear material that could be used in weapons. Under the current system, any country has the right to master these operations for civilian uses. But in doing so, it also masters the most difficult steps in making a nuclear bomb. To overcome this, I am hoping that we can make these operations multinational – so that no one country can have exclusive control over any such operation. My plan is to begin by setting up a reserve fuel bank, under IAEA control, so that every country will be assured that it will get the fuel needed for its bona fide peaceful nuclear activities. This assurance of supply will remove the incentive – and the justification – for each country to develop its own fuel cycle. We should then be able to agree on a moratorium on new national facilities, and to begin work on multinational arrangements for enrichment, fuel production, waste disposal and reprocessing. We must also strengthen the verification system. IAEA inspections are the heart and soul of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. To be effective, it is essential that we are provided with the necessary authority, information, advanced technology, and resources. And our inspections must be backed by the UN Security Council, to be called on in cases of non-compliance. Third, accelerate disarmament efforts. We still have eight or nine countries who possess nuclear weapons. We still have 27,000 warheads in existence. I believe this is 27,000 too many. A good start would be if the nuclear-weapon states reduced the strategic role given to these weapons. More than 15 years after the end of the Cold War, it is incomprehensible to many that the major nuclear-weapon states operate with their arsenals on hair-trigger alert – such that, in the case of a possible launch of a nuclear attack, their leaders could have only 30 minutes to decide whether to retaliate, risking the devastation of entire nations in a matter of minutes. These are three concrete steps that, I believe, can readily be taken. Protect the material and strengthen verification. Control the fuel cycle. Accelerate disarmament efforts. But that is not enough. The hard part is: how do we create an environment in which nuclear weapons – like slavery or genocide – are regarded as a taboo and a historical anomaly? * * * * * * * Ladies and Gentlemen. Whether one believes in evolution, intelligent design, or Divine Creation, one thing is certain. Since the beginning of history, human beings have been at war with each other, under the pretext of religion, ideology, ethnicity and other reasons. And no civilization has ever willingly given up its most powerful weapons. We seem to agree today that we can share modern technology, but we still refuse to acknowledge that our values – at their very core – are shared values. I am an Egyptian Muslim, educated in Cairo and New York, and now living in Vienna. My wife and I have spent half our lives in the North, half in the South. And we have experienced first hand the unique nature of the human family and the common values we all share. Shakespeare speaks of every single member of that family in The Merchant of Venice, when he asks: "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?" And lest we forget: There is no religion that was founded on intolerance – and no religion that does not value the sanctity of human life. Judaism asks that we value the beauty and joy of human existence. Christianity says we should treat our neighbours as we would be treated. Islam declares that killing one person unjustly is the same as killing all of humanity. Hinduism recognizes the entire universe as one family. Buddhism calls on us to cherish the oneness of all creation. Some would say that it is too idealistic to believe in a society based on tolerance and the sanctity of human life, where borders, nationalities and ideologies are of marginal importance. To those I say, this is not idealism, but rather realism, because history has taught us that war rarely resolves our differences. Force does not heal old wounds; it opens new ones. * * * * * * * Ladies and Gentlemen. I have talked about our efforts to combat the misuse of nuclear energy. Let me now tell you how this very same energy is used for the benefit of humankind. At the IAEA, we work daily on every continent to put nuclear and radiation techniques in the service of humankind. In Vietnam, farmers plant rice with greater nutritional value that was developed with IAEA assistance. Throughout Latin America, nuclear technology is being used to map underground aquifers, so that water supplies can be managed sustainably. In Ghana, a new radiotherapy machine is offering cancer treatment to thousands of patients. In the South Pacific, Japanese scientists are using nuclear techniques to study climate change. In India, eight new nuclear plants are under construction, to provide clean electricity for a growing nation – a case in point of the rising expectation for a surge in the use of nuclear energy worldwide. These projects, and a thousand others, exemplify the IAEA ideal: Atoms for Peace. But the expanding use of nuclear energy and technology also makes it crucial that nuclear safety and security are maintained at the highest level. Since the Chernobyl accident, we have worked all over the globe to raise nuclear safety performance. And since the September 2001 terrorist attacks, we have worked with even greater intensity on nuclear security. On both fronts, we have built an international network of legal norms and performance standards. But our most tangible impact has been on the ground. Hundreds of missions, in every part of the world, with international experts making sure nuclear activities are safe and secure. I am very proud of the 2,300 hard working men and women that make up the IAEA staff – the colleagues with whom I share this honour. Some of them are here with me today. We come from over 90 countries. We bring many different perspectives to our work. Our diversity is our strength. We are limited in our authority. We have a very modest budget. And we have no armies. But armed with the strength of our convictions, we will continue to speak truth to power. And we will continue to carry out our mandate with independence and objectivity. The Nobel Peace Prize is a powerful message for us – to endure in our efforts to work for security and development. A durable peace is not a single achievement, but an environment, a process and a commitment. * * * * * * * Ladies and Gentlemen. The picture I have painted today may have seemed somewhat grim. Let me conclude by telling you why I have hope. I have hope because the positive aspects of globalization are enabling nations and peoples to become politically, economically and socially interdependent, making war an increasingly unacceptable option. Among the 25 members of the European Union, the degree of economic and socio-political dependencies has made the prospect of the use of force to resolve differences almost absurd. The same is emerging with regard to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, with some 55 member countries from Europe, Central Asia and North America. Could these models be expanded to a world model, through the same creative multilateral engagement and active international cooperation, where the strong are just and the weak secure? I have hope because civil society is becoming better informed and more engaged. They are pressing their governments for change – to create democratic societies based on diversity, tolerance and equality. They are proposing creative solutions. They are raising awareness, donating funds, working to transform civic spirit from the local to the global. Working to bring the human family closer together. We now have the opportunity, more than at any time before, to give an affirmative answer to one of the oldest questions of all time: "Am I my brother's keeper?" What is required is a new mindset and a change of heart, to be able to see the person across the ocean as our neighbour. Finally, I have hope because of what I see in my children, and some of their generation. I took my first trip abroad at the age of 19. My children were even more fortunate than I. They had their first exposure to foreign culture as infants, and they were raised in a multicultural environment. And I can say absolutely that my son and daughter are oblivious to colour and race and nationality. They see no difference between their friends Noriko, Mafupo, Justin, Saulo and Hussam; to them, they are only fellow human beings and good friends. Globalization, through travel, media and communication, can also help us – as it has with my children and many of their peers – to see each other simply as human beings. * * * * * * * Your Majesties, Your Royal Highness, Ladies and Gentlemen. Imagine what would happen if the nations of the world spent as much on development as on building the machines of war. Imagine a world where every human being would live in freedom and dignity. Imagine a world in which we would shed the same tears when a child dies in Darfur or Vancouver. Imagine a world where we would settle our differences through diplomacy and dialogue and not through bombs or bullets. Imagine if the only nuclear weapons remaining were the relics in our museums. Imagine the legacy we could leave to our children. Imagine that such a world is within our grasp. ---- IAEA chief: 'Nuclear weapons mean world destruction' (Filed: 10/12/2005) UK Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/10/unobel.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/12/10/ixportaltop.html Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said the world must abandon nuclear weapons or face self-destruction. Mr ElBaradei was speaking in Norway as he collected the Nobel peace prize, which he shared with the IAEA, the UN's nuclear watchdog. "If we hope to escape self-destruction, then I believe nuclear weapons should have no place in our collective conscience, and no role in our security," Mr ElBaradei said in his acceptance speech. "The hard part is: how do we create an environment in which all of us would look at nuclear weapons the way we look at slavery or genocide, as a taboo and a historical anomaly?" The IAEA and Mr ElBaradei won the prize for their drive to control the spread of nuclear weapons, especially to terrorists. The 63-year-old Egyptian and Yukiya Amano, the IAEA's board of governors chairman, accepted the peace prize 60 years after the atomic bombings of the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Mr ElBaradei said that six decades since the end of the Second World War, the threat of a nuclear nightmare still remained. He emphasised international concerns about possible atomic weapons programmes in Iran and North Korea, and terrorists' increasingly sophisticated efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. "Our security strategies have not yet caught up with the security threats we are facing," he said. "The globalization that has swept away the barriers to the movement of goods, ideas and people but is has also removed barriers that confined and localized security threats." ---- Spread of nuclear arms threatens world peace - Pope Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:12 PM IST (Reuters) http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-12-10T190538Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-227342-1.xml VATICAN CITY - The spread of nuclear weapons threatens global peace, Pope Benedict said in a message to the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, congratulating him and his agency for the Nobel Peace Prize. "Even today, 60 years after the devastating attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is clear that the peace of the world continues to be at risk from the spread of nuclear weapons," the Pope said in a telegram made public by the Vatican on Saturday. "The service that you have given to the international community by promoting nuclear non-proliferation and by contributing to the process of nuclear disarmament deserves the highest commendation," he said. ElBaradei, who is Egyptian, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) received the prize in Oslo on Saturday for their work to prevent the spread of nuclear arms and promote the safe use of atomic power. The 139-member agency, based in Vienna, polices the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. ---- Referring Nuke-Threats to Security Council by Gordon Prather Antiwar.com, December 10, 2005 http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8239 Last month the New York Times reported that unnamed senior "intelligence officials" had told them that – as part of a campaign to increase international pressure on Iran – they had "briefed" International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed El-Baradei and senior staff in mid-July on some of the sensitive "intelligence" they had gleaned from a "stolen Iranian laptop computer." They presented what they claimed was the strongest "evidence" yet that Iran must be developing lightweight compact nukes for its Shahab ballistic missile, which could "reach Israel." However, "sources close to the IAEA" said what they had been briefed on appeared to be aerodynamic design work for a ballistic missile reentry vehicle, not a nuclear warhead. Furthermore, according to David Albright, a sometime consultant to the IAEA, the information on the "stolen Iranian laptop" is all about reentry vehicles and does not even mention "nuclear" or "nuclear warhead." The distinction between "reentry vehicle" and "warhead" is all important. During the Iran-Iraq war in the late 1980s, each side launched 300 to 400 Scud ballistic missiles – carrying high explosive warheads – at each other's cities. The Scud is a liquid-fueled single-stage missile. The entire missile – containing the warhead – reenters the atmosphere, frequently tumbling end-over-end, breaking up into several pieces. It is a very expensive, very inaccurate delivery vehicle for high-explosives. Since then the Iranians have been attempting to develop a super-Scud ballistic missile wherein a cone-shaped "reentry" vehicle – in which the warhead is protected from the intense shock-heating of reentry into the atmosphere – detaches from the missile in flight. A properly designed reentry vehicle can deliver a warhead with great accuracy. Of course, if you've got a lightweight compact nuke capable of being delivered by ballistic missile you don't need great accuracy. So, whether the "briefing" unnamed senior intelligence officials made to El-Baradei and other IAEA officials convinced them that Iran had a relatively sophisticated ballistic missile reentry vehicle development program is irrelevant. Why? The IAEA has two missions: (a) to facilitate the international transfer of nuclear-related technologies and materials, and (b) to ensure – insofar as is possible – that "source and special nuclear materials" are not used in furtherance of some military purpose. Under the Iranian Safeguards Agreement – in force since 1974 – Iran agreed to allow IAEA inspectors to satisfy themselves that no amount of Iranian uranium or plutonium – however physically or chemically transformed – is being used or has been used "in furtherance of any military purpose." However, under that agreement the IAEA is only authorized to inspect facilities and activities that Iran has "declared." In 2003, at our insistence and at the urging of the IAEA Board, Iran signed an Additional Protocol to their Safeguards Agreement. The Iranian Parliament has yet to ratify it, but, pending ratification, the Iranians volunteered to cooperate with the IAEA as if the Additional Protocol was in force. Among other things, the Iranians have allowed El-Baradei to inspect any Iranian facility he had good reason to suspect housed materials and/or activities that should have been "declared," but hadn't been. At our insistence, the Iranians even allowed El-Baradei to visit certain Iranian military research and development sites at Parchin and elsewhere where we suspected the Iranians were doing something we don't want them to do. Maybe we're right. Maybe they are. But, as of now, El-Baradei has yet to find any indication that Iran is or has been engaged in any activity involving the use of source or special nuclear materials in furtherance of any military purpose. In any case, unless El-Baradei finds materials and/or activities at those sites that should have been Safeguarded – but were not – then under the IAEA Statute he is prohibited from telling us or anyone else what he does find there. For all those "senior intelligence officials" know, El-Baradei may already have known about the Iranian ballistic missile reentry vehicle development program. In any case, whether Iran has such a ballistic missile program or not is none of the IAEA's business. In fact, as the 24 September 2005 resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors explicitly acknowledged, these are "questions that are within the competence of the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security." So, since the IAEA Board won't, Condi-baby is threatening to take Iran's suspected nuke-missile program directly to the Security Council herself. That might not be a good idea. Some Council member might note that Israel almost certainly has lightweight compact nukes mounted on ballistic missiles capable of "reaching Iran." -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- vermont Douglas has busy 'Governor's Day' in Brattleboro By CATE LECUYER Brattleboro Reformer Staff Saturday, December 10, 2005 http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8862~3162055,00.html BRATTLEBORO -- Gov. Jim Douglas spent Friday meeting with local residents during the town's annual Governor's Day. Despite a morning storm that left almost a foot of snow, Douglas visited Brattleboro Memorial Hospital, Eden Park nursing home, the Estey Organ Museum and the Putney Inn for a Brattleboro Area Chamber of Commerce reception. The governor linked statewide issues with local concerns as he discussed the future of the Brattleboro Retreat, plans for a new YMCA in town, the Putney Road master plan, and Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee's proposal to increase energy production at the nuclear reactor in Vernon. Many of those issues will come up in the Legislative session that begins in January. During the annual meeting of the Southern Vermont Health Services Corporation at BMH, Douglas said he spoke with Richard Palmisano, CEO of the Brattleboro Retreat, about "how they may play a role as we seek to close the state [psychiatric] hospital in Waterbury," he said. Although there are plans to open a new replacement facility in Burlington, he said they hope to open two more smaller "satellite sites" to provide easier access for Vermonters across the state. He also spoke about aging in Vermont, and the challenge of keeping young people in the state. He said he supported plans for a YMCA in Brattleboro. "I think the 'Y' can play a key role in youth services," he said. The organization hopes to raise about $7 million to build a facility, and Douglas said he mentioned possible grants, "that they already seemed to be aware of" in terms of funding. Douglas said he was also excited to hear about the mixed housing plans for Putney Road. "We need housing at different levels of income," he said, including affordable homes for the working class, as well as the elderly who want to downsize. Douglas said the Putney Road plan corresponds to "traditional" Vermont housing, which focuses on "vital, vibrant downtowns surrounded by open space." Energy was also a major topic, with the Vermont Yankee uprate proposal, as well as windmill proposals around Vermont. Douglas said he was "surprised" when the town of Sheffield, in the Northeast Kingdom, approved a project for 26 windmills along a ridgeline. He said he thinks most Vermonters are aware that even a large number of wind turbines aren't going to replace nuclear or hydroelectric power, which provide about two-thirds of the state's energy. "For the power that would be generated from them, it's that change in our ridgelines that most Vermonters don't support," he said. Although he has clamored for renewable energy in the state, he is in favor of Entergy's plans for boosting Vermont Yankee's power output by 20 percent. "Yankee is the cheapest source of electricity that we have," he said. Douglas said he also plans to maintain a positive relationship with Hydro-Quebec, the Canadian company that supplies much of the energy in Vermont. Although the contract expires in 2015, he said he hopes the state will be able to renew it. Douglas said he hopes to find some common ground with legislators, and solve many of the state's ongoing, complicated problems, like health care. Cate Lecuyer can be reached at clecuyer@reformer.com or (802) 254-2311, ext. 271. -------- ACTIVISTS Peace laureate ElBaradei calls for nuke free world OSLO (AFP) Dec 10, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051210132900.gntezeph.html The head of the UN nuclear watchdog agency Mohamed ElBaradei, who on Saturday received the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize, advocated a world free of atomic weapons and called on existing nuclear states to lead by example. "If we hope to escape self-destruction, then nuclear weapons should have no place in our collective conscience, and no role in our security," ElBaradei said in his acceptance speech at a ceremony in Oslo's City Hall. "We must ensure, absolutely, that no more countries acquire nuclear weapons. That nuclear weapon states take concrete steps towards nuclear disarmament, and we must put in place a security system that does not rely on nuclear deterrence," he added. ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), represented by the chairman of its board of governors, Yukiya Amano, were jointly honored on Saturday for "their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes". They received their distinction from chairman of the Nobel Committee Ole Mjoes 60 years after the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan on August 6 and 9, 1945, the world's only nuclear attacks. "At a time when the threat of nuclear arms is again increasing, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to underline that this threat must be met through the broadest possible international cooperation," Mjoes said. In his acceptance speech, ElBaradei emphasized that the threat of nuclear proliferation was closely linked to inequalities in the world. "In regions where conflicts have been left to fester for decades, countries continue to look for ways to offset their insecurities or project their power ... They may be tempted to seek their own weapons of mass destruction, like others who have preceded them," he said. Fifteen years after the Cold War came to an end, the IAEA chief lamented that "we may have torn down the walls between East and West, but we have yet to build the bridges between North and South, the rich and the poor." To rid the world of the threat of nuclear weapons, "a good start would be if the nuclear weapons states reduced the strategic role given to these weapons," he said. "Today, eight or nine countries possess nuclear weapons. Today we still have 27,000 warheads in existence. To me, this is 27,000 too many," he added. The IAEA and its chief have most recently been instrumental in thorny nuclear negotiations with Iran, threatening to take the country before the UN Security Council for violating nuclear non-proliferation rules. Iran has insisted that its nuclear program is merely designed to meet domestic energy needs, while the United States, Israel and others have charged it is a cover for a programme to develop an atom bomb. On Saturday, ElBaradei said that to avoid such ambiguity, he planned to set up a "reserve fuel bank" under IAEA control. "This assurance of supply will remove the incentive, and the justification, for each country to develop its own fuel cycle," he said. Ending his speech on an upbeat note, ElBaradei asked the audience to "imagine what would happen if the nations of the world spent as much on development as on the machines of war." "Imagine that the only nuclear weapons remaining are the relics in our museums. Imagine the legacy we could leave to our children. Imagine that such a world is actually within our grasp," he concluded. The agency and its director received their award, consisting of a Nobel diploma, a gold medal and 10 million Swedish kronor (1.3 million dollars, 1.1 million euros) to be split between them, in a brightly decorated City Hall, decked with yellow orchids and carnations, and in the presence of Norway's King Harald. At a separate ceremony on Saturday, the anniversary of the death of prize founder Alfred Nobel, the winners of this year's Literature, Medicine, Physics, Chemistry and Economics prizes will receive their awards from King Carl XVI Gustaf in Stockholm's Concert Hall. ---- Sheehan joins peace activists in Britain 12/10/2005 LONDON (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-12-10-sheehan-in-britain_x.htm Hundreds of anti-war protesters, including American Cindy Sheehan, attended an international peace conference in London on Saturday to condemn the Iraq conflict. Tony Benn, a veteran leftist politician in the governing Labour Party, opened the one-day meeting by calling the war "illegal, immoral and unwinnable." He said the peace movement wants to see coalition troops withdrawn from Iraq, justice for Palestinians and a ban on any Western military attacks on Iran or Syria. Benn said anti-war sentiment was growing in the United States and Britain, whose armed forces dominate the coalition's military presence in Iraq. Up to 1,500 anti-war protesters and activists gathered for the 10-hour conference, which was organized by the Stop the War Coalition. The scheduled speakers included Sheehan, who has become a focus of anti-war sentiment in the United States by camping outside the Texas ranch of President George W. Bush; Hasan Zergani Hashim, a spokesperson for Iraq's radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr; and leftist British legislator George Galloway. In an interview with Sky TV, Galloway urged British forces to leave Iraq. "The only thing the Iraqis want from the British government is to see the backs of their heads as they leave the country," he said. "If occupation is ugly, then resistance will hardly be pretty," he said, in an apparent reference to the deadly attacks that are being conducted by insurgent groups in Iraq.