NucNews - December 11, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- canada Ontario Power Generation urges quick action on nuclear recommendations STEVE ERWIN Sun Dec 11, 2:36 PM ET (CP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20051211/ca_pr_on_bu/ont_nuclear_future_1 TORONTO - Ontario Power Generation is ready and waiting to build more nuclear reactors and its Darlington station is the best place to do it, according a top official of the Crown corporation. Since it can take years to complete construction of a new nuclear plant, let alone a refurbishment of existing units, the province should act soon on an Ontario Power Authority report released Friday, which calls for nuclear expansion, said Pierre Charlebois, OPG's chief nuclear officer. "If a decision is to be made. . . our Darlington site clearly would be an ideal site for a new build," Charlebois told The Canadian Press in an interview. "We have a very supportive community, and we have the capability at Darlington." He added that environmental assessments - which can take two or three years to complete - could begin as early as next year to study new units and plans to refurbish existing units at Darlington. Those existing units are scheduled to go offline in seven to 10 years. "If we are going to have considerations of plant refurbishments down the road, in order to extend the life of the existing facilities, that needs to occur early in the process," Charlebois said. The Darlington nuclear station is located 80 kilometres east of Toronto in the town of Clarington. Sources say the government has been looking at the possibility of building two 900-megawatt Candu reactors at the site, which would increase Darlington's total output by 50 per cent. Friday's report from the OPA calls for up to $40-billion worth of new nuclear power projects in Ontario over the next 20 years. It's part of an overall strategy that recommends nuclear power maintain a 50 per cent share of Ontario's energy supply mix to address potential future shortages. Critics of nuclear expansion say it's too expensive and unsafe. Past projects went billions of dollars over budget, including Darlington. Its $4-billion cost eventually swelled to $15 billion. And much of those cost overruns are still being paid off by hydro customers in Ontario, through debt retirement charges that appear on bills. "Every nuclear reactor has undergone huge cost overruns - in the 70s, the 80s and the 90s - and we're seeing the same thing has continued to happen with the refurbishment of these reactors as they reach the end of their life," said Shawn-Patrick Stensil of Greenpeace Canada. He noted that Ontario Power Generation's efforts to restore Unit 4 at the Pickering A facility cost $1.25 billion, almost three times the original projected cost. "This is headed totally in the wrong direction," New Democrat Leader Howard Hampton said of calls for nuclear expansion. "The Ontario experience with nuclear has been very, very expensive." But Charlebois said construction-management methods for nuclear projects have improved. And he said the province could agree to launch environmental assessments of a Darlington expansion without committing to the project. "Clearly, you can launch the environmental assessments and you can start looking at planning without actually committing to a project. But that work needs to be done," he said. Ontario has already approved an expansion of Bruce Power's nuclear station near Kincardine. There's a little more than 11,000 MW of nuclear generating capacity in the province currently. But including the Bruce refurbishment and a recent refurbishment at OPG's Pickering A station, only 3,500 MW of nuclear are scheduled to be in place by 2025. That means between 9,400 and 12,400 MW of nuclear must be added by 2025, according to the OPA. There's no room to expand Pickering B, and no plans to reconsider refurbishing units 2 and 3 at Pickering A. The government deemed it was not economical to complete the refurbishments because specific major components of those units are in such poor condition, Charlebois said. But at Darlington, there's room for expansion. The site was originally designed to accommodate eight reactors but currently has only four. Also, transmission lines to carry a greater load of nuclear-generated electricity are already in place. Even roads that were put in place to carry construction supplies from boats to the site are still intact. A Darlington expansion also has the blessing of Clarington's mayor and the broader Durham regional council, who are rubbing their hands over the prospect of thousands of jobs being created for multi-year construction projects. There is room on Bruce's site to build a Bruce "C" set of nuclear units, though Bruce Power CEO Duncan Hawthorne has previously noted that more transmission lines would have to be built to accommodate a higher load. -------- europe German minister eyes nuclear power rethink: paper Sun Dec 11, 6:01 PM ET (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051211/sc_nm/energy_nuclear_germany_dc_1 BERLIN - Nuclear power should play a role in electricity production in Germany in the future, Economy Minister Michael Glos said in a newspaper interview on Sunday, calling for a rethink of plans to close the country's reactors. "We need a broad energy mix to guarantee supplies at low prices," Glos was quoted as saying in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung. "It doesn't make any sense for us to buy electricity produced by nuclear power from our neighbors but to totally turn our backs on it ourselves." Germany's conservatives and Social Democrats (SPD) agreed to disagree on the merits of nuclear power in their coalition government deal struck last month. Glos is a member of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the sister party of the Christian Democrats (CDU). The coalition contract said there would be no changes to a decision taken by the former Social Democrat-Greens government in 2000 to phase out nuclear power gradually. Two nuclear reactors have already been closed. The remaining 17, owned by utilities RWE AG, E.ON AG and EnBW, are due to shut over the next 15 years. The next due to close, according to the environment ministry, is RWE's 1.225 megawatt "Biblis A" reactor, in 932 days. Glos said he hoped for a rethink. "We should not turn our backs on a technology of the future...But I hope that the last word has not been spoken. The tussle between coalition partners who work well together over what makes economic sense never ends." -------- iran Iran offers U.S. share in building nuclear power plant 12/11/2005 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-12-11-iran-nuclear_x.htm TEHRAN, Iran — Iran opened the door Sunday for U.S. help in building a nuclear power plant — a move designed to ease American suspicions that Tehran is using its nuclear program as a cover to build atomic weapons. The offer, which did not seem likely to win acceptance in Washington, was issued as Israel said it had not ruled out a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. "America can take part in international bidding for the construction of Iran's nuclear power plant if they observe the basic standards and quality," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in a news conference. Asefi was apparently talking about a 360-megawatt light water nuclear power plant that the head of the country's atomic organization said Saturday would be built in southwestern Iran. Iran also wants to produce 2,000 megawatts of electricity by building nuclear power plants with foreign help in southern Iran. In Washington, neither the State Department nor the White House issued any comment on the proposal. While it was unclear how the Americans would react to the Iranian proposal, relations between Tehran and Washington, which were severed after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, have seldom been worse. The United States has imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran, preventing American companies from doing business in Iran. The United States also has ratcheted up pressure against Iran, accusing it of pursuing a nuclear weapons program and supporting anti-Israeli militants. Iran says its nuclear program is designed only to generate electricity. Still, the United States is pushing for Tehran to be hauled before the U.N. Security Council, where it could face economic sanctions for violating a nuclear arms control treaty. The Iranian offer comes at a time when Iran is facing a barrage of criticism over President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent remarks, first that Israel should be wiped off the map and later that the Jewish state should be moved to Europe. On Sunday, Israel denied a British newspaper report it has plans to attack Iran in March, but officials said they would not rule out a military strike if Iran makes advances in building nuclear weapons. The report appeared in the Sunday Times. Amos Gilad, a senior Defense Ministry official, said attention was now focused on an international solution over the Iranian program but added, "It isn't correct to say that a country that is threatened should deny that it will ever consider a different option." Israel Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said the country would never accept a nuclear-armed Iran. "Israel can't live in a situation in which Iran has the atomic bomb," he said. Iranian political analyst Saeed Leilaz said Tehran's offer was somewhat genuine but also politically motivated. "Iran made the offer seriously to show the United States that it won't produce a bomb and ease its concern," Leilaz said. "And partly, Iran made the offer because it's almost sure the United States won't accept it." Iran has been involved in stalled talks with European negotiators aimed at making Tehran permanently freeze nuclear enrichment, which can produce material for use in warheads or fuel for nuclear plants to generate electricity. Tehran temporarily froze its enrichment program in November 2004, but the Europeans want it permanently halted. The United States backs the Iran-Europe talks, which broke off in August but will resume Dec. 21 in Vienna. Tehran since has restarted uranium conversion, a precursor to enrichment. "The (Vienna) meeting will be a serious one," Asefi said. "Everything is dependent on the meeting and the talks. Everything will be decided there. We will make a decision based on its results in the future." Asefi refused to speculate on the result of the talks, saying only that "if Europe works based on the non-proliferation treaty, safeguards and international measures, then there will be no room for concern." He said again that the agenda would focus on Iran's right to enrich uranium, and the talks would be held on a senior level. Germany, France and Britain have suggested shifting Iran's enrichment activities to Russia, where nuclear material would be enriched only to fuel levels and not to weapons grade. But Iran said it would enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel domestically. On Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the international community was losing patience with Iran over its nuclear program. "ElBaradei should not politicize issues," Asefi said. "He knows Iran has not diverted in its nuclear program. Some of the words that he said were not correct at all." ---- AXIS OF EVIL REVISITED Tehran has exploited the gap between Washington and Europe By Alan Isenberg, Alan Isenberg writes for Newsweek International. He recently completed a fellowship at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation that focused on Iran's nuclear program. Los Angeles Times, December 11, 2005 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-iranevil11dec11,0,7404740.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions OVER THE last four years, and especially under radical new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran has done its best to live up to President Bush's 2002 declaration that it is part of an "axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." Yet as Iran's leaders make incendiary statements and threaten to fully resume their nuclear program, the United States and Europe have done little to effectively defuse the threat. The tired transatlantic discourse has gone roughly as follows: Those who favor aggressive action against the Iranian regime for its nuclear aspirations point to Ahmadinejad's crackdown on civil society, his purge of moderate diplomats from Tehran's embassies around the world and his recent statement that Israel should be wiped off the map. They also note with concern that Iran covered up its nuclear program for nearly two decades and that it has been disingenuous in its commitments to suspend this effort since it came to light in 2003. Those who oppose a harsh response have an equally long litany of defenses. Bombing nuclear sites or imposing harsh sanctions, they say, will only rally the Iranian population around the mullahs, further postponing democratic reform or revolution. Targeting nuclear sites is difficult because of their diffuse and secret locations. Besides, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has kept Ahmadinejad on a tight leash regarding the nuclear program and has explicitly said that Iran would not attack Israel. This debate has pushed the West to a point of strategic weakness. To contend with Iran, the United States favors an awkward assortment of tactics: lukewarm endorsements for the European negotiations; intermittent, cryptic threats of military action; overbroad sanctions; and the diplomatic silent treatment. The European talks, for their part, lack clear momentum and teeth; European foreign ministers have been refreshingly strong in their rhetoric but without results. Most important, the United States and Europe have failed to bring aboard Russia and China, whose vetoes in the U.N. Security Council could obviate any meaningful multilateral response. Tehran has masterfully exploited the limits of the U.S. and European approaches, pressing ahead with elements of its nuclear program, seeking strategic allies whom it can tempt with its vast oil and gas resources and further suppressing democracy at home. For all Iran's claims that it wants a nuclear program for energy alone, its leaders seem interested only in results allowing it to enrich its own uranium — a dangerous proposition given the mullahs' history of deceit and radical government. In a testament to its true intentions, Tehran has been cool to Russia's recent proposal, backed by the United States and Europe, to allow the enrichment of Iranian nuclear fuel exclusively on Russian soil. European Union-Iran talks remain stalled, and a U.N. Security Council referral seems nigh even if they resume. Rather than worrying about Iran's behavior alone — the regime may well remain undeterred at this point — the West should expand its strategic response in the following ways: • As their first diplomatic priority, the United States and Europe should work to line up commitments of greater support from Beijing and Moscow, should Iran's nuclear stance grow more belligerent. Russia is still dealing dangerously with Tehran (recently agreeing to a $1-billion arms deal), and China cares more about its oil and gas dependency than an Iranian nuclear power program, but neither wants to see Iran get the bomb. Moreover, Russia and China have the power of the purse over Iran. Sanctions from these states could serve as a real deterrent. For example, Russian President Vladimir Putin could give Tehran serious pause by hinting that the fate of Russian-Iranian military cooperation hinges on Iran agreeing to Moscow's enrichment proposal. • Next, the United States must engage more meaningfully with Iran. Although Ahmadinejad is a zealot of the highest order, Iran and the United States have mutually important interests that they can discuss without complete detente. A solid first step is the Bush administration's decision to allow Zalmay Khalilzad, the highly capable U.S. ambassador to Iraq, to begin talks with senior Iranians about issues related to Iraq. Iran has publicly rebuffed this attempt. More offers of engagement from the United States, even if sharply rejected by Tehran, would show everyday Iranians that it is their leaders — not the U.S. — who are deepening their isolation and exacerbating their economic woes. Now is also the time to relax visa requirements so that more Iranian students can study in the U.S. Exposure to American culture is the best way to dispel the vicious myths Tehran propagates about the "Great Satan." • Europe, for its part, should be intolerant of any further Iranian stunts should negotiations resume. If Iran walks away from talks again or restarts uranium enrichment, the issue should automatically go to the Security Council without regard for Iran's threatened response. That said, Europe should also be able to show Tehran that it can persuade the United States to offer major incentives, such as the repeal of sanctions, in exchange for Iranian compliance. Iran today indeed poses a problem with no easy solution. But managing it through proactive policies would be a vast improvement. ---- Nuclear talks this month will be crucial: Iran TEHRAN (AFP) Dec 11, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051211095917.xtitadrr.html Iran said Sunday that a planned meeting later this month with the Britain, France and Germany on its disputed nuclear programme will be decisive for the future of diplomacy over the crisis. Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi also reiterated that Iran would be sticking by its demand to conduct ultra-sensitive nuclear fuel work -- despite fears such activities could be diverted to make an atomic bomb. "This meeting will be very serious. Everything depends on this meeting," Asefi said of the planned talks -- provisionally scheduled to take place in Vienna on December 21. "We expect this meeting to pay attention to the facts and Iran's rights. We believe that we must be treated without discrimination. We don't want more than others and we won't settle for anything less," he said. "The topic will be Iran's right to enrichment," he added. EU-Iran talks collapsed in August when Tehran ended its suspension of uranium conversion, a first step towards enrichment, and the planned talks are aimed at exploring if an avenue for resuming negotiations is open. But the two sides remain totally deadlocked over the core issue of Iran's effort to master the entire nuclear fuel cycle -- a process that culminates in the enrichment of uranium. As a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran argues that fuel cycle work for peaceful purposes is a "right". But the process of enriching uranium can be extended to make weapons material can be extended to military purposes. The EU-3 -- backed by the United States -- want Iran to give up such work as an "objective guarantee" it will not acquire weapons. They want to push for a compromise under which Iran's enrichment work would be carried out in Russia, although this has already been rejected by Tehran. Asefi said the only chance for the negotiations was if the European side compromises -- even though this appears to be out of the question. "If the Europeans are rational and act according to NPT and international agreements, there is nothing to worry about and the meeting will have a good result," Asefi told reporters. "It all depends on the European side and whether they enter the talks and give us our rights," he said. The International Atomic Energy Agency has said Iran is not complying with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which could lead to referral to the UN Security Council and possible sanctions. The IAEA last month put off such action after the EU-3 agreed to give time for Russian diplomacy to work. But the climate for talks has worsened after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad questioned the Holocaust and suggested Israel be relocated to Europe. In October he provoked a similar diplomatic storm after calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map". Iran's nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani has also warned that his country could soon resume making centrifuges -- the devices used to enrich uranium -- and conducting "research." -------- israel Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv, and Sarah Baxter, Washington December 11, 2005 UK Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html ISRAEL’S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed. The order came after Israeli intelligence warned the government that Iran was operating enrichment facilities, believed to be small and concealed in civilian locations. Iran’s stand-off with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over nuclear inspections and aggressive rhetoric from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who said last week that Israel should be moved to Europe, are causing mounting concern. The crisis is set to come to a head in early March, when Mohamed El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, will present his next report on Iran. El-Baradei, who received the Nobel peace prize yesterday, warned that the world was “losing patience” with Iran. A senior White House source said the threat of a nuclear Iran was moving to the top of the international agenda and the issue now was: “What next?” That question would have to be answered in the next few months, he said. Defence sources in Israel believe the end of March to be the “point of no return” after which Iran will have the technical expertise to enrich uranium in sufficient quantities to build a nuclear warhead in two to four years. “Israel — and not only Israel — cannot accept a nuclear Iran,” Sharon warned recently. “We have the ability to deal with this and we’re making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation.” The order to prepare for a possible attack went through the Israeli defence ministry to the chief of staff. Sources inside special forces command confirmed that “G” readiness — the highest stage — for an operation was announced last week. Gholamreza Aghazadeah, head of the Atomic Organisation of Iran, warned yesterday that his country would produce nuclear fuel. “There is no doubt that we have to carry out uranium enrichment,” he said. He promised it would not be done during forthcoming talks with European negotiators. But although Iran insists it wants only nuclear energy, Israeli intelligence has concluded it is deceiving the world and has no intention of giving up what it believes is its right to develop nuclear weapons. A “massive” Israeli intelligence operation has been underway since Iran was designated the “top priority for 2005”, according to security sources. Cross-border operations and signal intelligence from a base established by the Israelis in northern Iraq are said to have identified a number of Iranian uranium enrichment sites unknown to the the IAEA. Since Israel destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, “it has been understood that the lesson is, don’t have one site, have 50 sites”, a White House source said. If a military operation is approved, Israel will use air and ground forces against several nuclear targets in the hope of stalling Tehran’s nuclear programme for years, according to Israeli military sources. It is believed Israel would call on its top special forces brigade, Unit 262 — the equivalent of the SAS — and the F-15I strategic 69 Squadron, which can strike Iran and return to Israel without refuelling. “If we opt for the military strike,” said a source, “it must be not less than 100% successful. It will resemble the destruction of the Egyptian air force in three hours in June 1967.” Aharon Zeevi Farkash, the Israeli military intelligence chief, stepped up the pressure on Iran this month when he warned Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, that “if by the end of March the international community is unable to refer the Iranian issue to the United Nations security council, then we can say the international effort has run its course”. The March deadline set for military readiness also stems from fears that Iran is improving its own intelligence-gathering capability. In October it launched its first satellite, the Sinah-1, which was carried by a Russian space launcher. “The Iranians’ space programme is a matter of deep concern to us,” said an Israeli defence source. “If and when we launch an attack on several Iranian targets, the last thing we need is Iranian early warning received by satellite.” Russia last week signed an estimated $1 billion contract — its largest since 2000 — to sell Iran advanced Tor-M1 systems capable of destroying guided missiles and laser-guided bombs from aircraft. “Once the Iranians get the Tor-M1, it will make our life much more difficult,” said an Israeli air force source. “The installation of this system can be relatively quick and we can’t waste time on this one.” The date set for possible Israeli strikes on Iran also coincides with Israel’s general election on March 28, prompting speculation that Sharon may be sabre-rattling for votes. Benjamin Netanyahu, the frontrunner to lead Likud into the elections, said that if Sharon did not act against Iran, “then when I form the new Israeli government, we’ll do what we did in the past against Saddam’s reactor, which gave us 20 years of tranquillity”. TEHRAN MINISTER MET MILITANTS BEFORE NEW OFFENSIVE Iran’s foreign minister met leading figures from three Islamic militant groups to co-ordinate a united front against Israel days before a recent escalation of attacks against Israeli targets shattered fragile ceasefires with Lebanon and the Palestinians, writes Hugh Macleod in Damascus. The minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, held talks with leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah in Damascus on November 15. Among those who attended the meeting were Khaled Meshaal, the Hamas leader, and a deputy leader of Islamic Jihad, which claimed responsibility for last Monday’s suicide bombing of a shopping mall in Netanya that killed five Israeli citizens. Ahmed Jibril, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine- General Command, was also present. “We all confirmed that what is going on in occupied Palestine is organically connected to what is going on in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Lebanon,” said Jibril. Seven days after the talks, Hezbollah fired a volley of rockets and mortars at Israeli targets, sparking the fiercest fighting between the two sides since Israel’s withdrawal from south Lebanon five years ago. -------- u.n. Nobel prize winner urges disarmament By James Hamilton 11 December 2005 UK Sunday Herald http://www.sundayherald.com/53288 The world should work to make nuclear weapons as universally condemned as slavery or genocide. This message from UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech yesterday came as Iran defiantly insisted it would press ahead with plans to enrich uranium. ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said the 27,000 nuclear warheads in the world were “27,000 warheads too many”. He added: “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?” Announced as laureates in October, ElBaradei and the IAEA shared the peace prize for their work to prevent the spread of nuclear arms and promote the safe use of atomic power. ElBaradei urged a halt to proliferation of nuclear arms and disarmament by the “eight or nine” states that now have them: “We must ensure absolutely that no more countries acquire nuclear weapons.” Where conflicts are allowed to fester, some countries may seek weapons of mass destruction, he warned. The IAEA has been at the heart of efforts to resolve the international dispute with Iran over its nuclear programme. Iran is under pressure to cut its nuclear activities, particularly uranium enrichment, which can produce material for use in warheads or fuel for nuclear plants to generate electricity. “For me, there is no doubt that the process of producing nuclear fuel in Iran will be accomplished,” Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of the Atomic Organisation of Iran said yesterday. “There is no doubt that we have to carry out uranium enrichment.” The tension over the issue was shown in an interview published yesterday in which ElBaradei appeared to warn Israel not to bomb Iranian atomic facilities. “You cannot use force to prevent a country from obtaining nuclear weapons. By bombing them half to death, you can only delay the plans,” ElBaradei was quoted as saying by Oslo newspaper Aftenposten. “But they will come back, and they will demand revenge.” The report said ElBaradei did not mention Israel, by name but it was clear he was referring to its increasingly open discussion over whether to protect itself by bombing Iranian facilities it suspects are being used in a possible secret nuclear weapons programme. Israel’s Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz said he was not interested in discussing the issue. ---- Accepting Nobel, ElBaradei Urges a Rethinking of Nuclear Strategy By WALTER GIBBS December 11, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/international/europe/11oslo.html OSLO, Dec. 10 - The world should stop treating the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea as isolated cases and instead deal with them in a common effort to eliminate poverty, organized crime and armed conflict, the director general of the United Nations' nuclear monitoring agency said Saturday in accepting the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize. The director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, said a "good start" would be for the United States and other nuclear powers to cut nuclear weapon stockpiles sharply and redirect spending toward international development. "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," Dr. ElBaradei, 63, said. Despite some disarmament, he continued, the existence of 27,000 nuclear warheads in various hands around the world still hold the prospect of "the devastation of entire nations in a matter of minutes." Feelings of insecurity and humiliation, exaggerated by today's nuclear imbalance, are behind the spread of bomb-development programs at the national level, said Dr. ElBaradei, who has led the International Atomic Energy Agency since 1997. No less dangerous, he added, are the presumed efforts of extremist groups to acquire nuclear materials. With goods, ideas and people moving more freely than ever, the containment of nuclear technology must be part of a broad global effort, he said. "We cannot respond to these threats by building more walls, developing bigger weapons or dispatching more troops," he said. "These threats require primarily multinational cooperation." Dr. ElBaradei said the manufacture and sale of nuclear fuel for power generation, which can also be enriched to make bombs, should be placed under multinational control, with his agency operating as a "reserve fuel bank" for accredited nations. The Norwegian Nobel Committee divided the 2005 award between Dr. ElBaradei and the atomic energy agency as a whole. Dr. ElBaradei and Yukiya Amano, the agency's board chairman, were awarded diplomas and medals in a colorful ceremony before more than 1,000 dignitaries at Oslo City Hall. The committee chairman, Ole Danbolt Mjos, lauded Dr. ElBaradei and his agency for resisting "heavy pressure" in 2003 to fall in line with an American contention that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program despite the failure of the agency's inspectors to find hard evidence. "As the world could see after the war in Iraq, the weapons that were not found proved not to have existed," Mr. Mjos said. In what appeared to be an allusion to that episode, Dr. ElBaradei said: "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." For the Nobel committee, this year's choice of winners was a return to basics after last year's untraditional award to Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan environmentalist whose tree-planting campaigns are only tangentially related to war and peace. When Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist who helped develop dynamite, died in 1897, he left money in his will to honor someone each year "who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Dr. ElBaradei and the agency will split this year's prize money of 10 million Swedish kronor (about $1.3 million) and have promised their shares to charitable causes. ---- Spread of Nuclear Arms Threatens Peace, Says Pontiff VATICAN CITY, DEC. 11, 2005 (Zenit.org). http://www.catholic.net/global_catholic_news/template_news.phtml?news_id=81452&channel_id=2 In a congratulatory message to the latest winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Benedict XVI described the proliferation of nuclear weapons as a threat to peace. "Even today, sixty 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 to Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In his message, published Saturday by the Vatican press office, the Holy Father said that ElBaradei's service "to the international community by promoting nuclear non-proliferation and by contributing to the process of nuclear disarmament deserves the highest commendation." The telegram ends by assuring the Pope's prayers "that God will continue to guide the efforts of all who work for peace and especially those who seek to prevent any further use of weapons of mass destruction." Egyptian-born ElBaradei, 63, a career diplomat, has headed the IAEA since December 1997. The agency, founded in 1957, is an autonomous body in the U.N. system. Today the agency has 139 member countries. The Holy See is a founding member. On accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway, on Saturday, ElBaradei encouraged the acceleration of nuclear disarmament and said he favored the reform of security strategies inherited from the Cold War. Here is the full text of the papal telegram, which was dated Nov. 3. * * * I was pleased to learn of the award of this Year's Nobel Peace Prize to yourself and to the International Atomic Energy Agency of which you are Director General and I offer you my heartfelt congratulations. Even today, sixty 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 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. I pray that God will continue to guide the efforts of all who work for peace and especially those who seek to prevent any further use of weapons of mass destruction. BENEDICTUS PP. XVI -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- florida UF changes reactor security after ABC report By JACK STRIPLING Gainesville Sun staff writer December 11, 2005 6:01AM http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051211/LOCAL/51211001/1078/rss The story behind reactor security # ABC News reported that two undercover visitors with student IDs were taken through three locked doors and permitted to tour UF's nuclear reactor control room. # After ABC Primetime aired the story, which featured 25 universities, UF officials insisted their facility was completely safe and up to standards set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. # After a review of the segment, the NRC found that UF was in compliance with the commission's standards, an NRC spokesman said Friday. # After the ABC report, the commission sent letters to all universities with reactors and asked them to "reverify" their security plans and procedures, Eliot Brenner of the NRC said Friday. UF complied with the request, he said. month after a nationally televised investigative report raised concerns about the safety of nuclear training reactors on university campuses, the University of Florida has implemented more stringent security standards at its nuclear facility, a UF spokesman said Thursday. After ABC Primetime aired the story, which featured 25 universities, UF officials insisted their facility was completely safe and up to standards set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "They're perfectly in line with the NRC guidelines," said Steve Orlando, UF's associate director of News and Public Affairs. "But if there's any perception in the public of an unsafe situation, it needs to be addressed. (These changes) in part go toward accomplishing that." Orlando would not elaborate on the changes that have taken place at the reactor in UF's Nuclear Science Building, citing NRC guidelines that require universities to keep security matters confidential. ABC News reported that two undercover visitors with student IDs were taken through three locked doors and permitted to tour UF's nuclear reactor control room. After a review of the segment, the NRC found that UF was in compliance with the commission's standards, an NRC spokesman said Friday. "The University of Florida did not break any rules," said Eliot Brenner, director of the NRC's Office of Public Affairs. After the ABC report, the commission sent letters to all universities with reactors and asked them to "reverify" their security plans and procedures, Brenner said Friday. UF complied with the request, Brenner said. One university, which Brenner would not name, is still under investigation. "There is one instance where we are having discussions with a university," he said, declining to elaborate on the source of any concerns. "I cannot name it, but I will tell you it's not the University of Florida." Orlando took particular issue with a segment of ABC's report which stated that UF and others were under NRC "investigation" in light of the news program's reporting. But Brenner said the NRC's inquiries in the last month could accurately be characterized as an investigation. "In the sense that we were checking what ABC reported on, you could describe it as that," he said. UF's nuclear reactor, surrounded by 50 tons of concrete, is fueled by nearly 5 kilograms of enriched uranium and has a power level of 100 kilowatts. UF's reactor is in the low- to midsize range among some 40 active university research reactors. University reactors were first constructed on campuses in 1953 as part of President Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program. UF's reactor was installed in 1959. After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, NRC required all universities to make confidential security upgrades. Brenner said the NRC constantly re-accesses security measures. "We continue to conclude that the security plans, procedures and measures are adequate to protect public health and safety," he said. "But we will not hesitate to act if we conclude additional security measures are appropriate." When asked if UF might scrap its reactor program in light of concerns, Orlando said, "That's absolutely not going to happen." Sun staff writer Bob Arndorfer contributed to this report. Jack Stripling can be reached at 374-5064. -------- texas With bid to run Los Alamos, UT picks a hot potato Nuclear aspect angers critics; officials say benefits outweigh risks 09:26 PM CST on Sunday, December 11, 2005 By HOLLY K. HACKER / The Dallas Morning News http://www.quickdfw.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/121205dntexlosalamos.7d5d069.html Los Alamos National Laboratory is best known as the birthplace of the atomic bomb. But lately, the New Mexico weapons lab has been known more for a string of safety and management problems, from missing classified data to employee credit card abuses. So why does the University of Texas System want to step in and help run Los Alamos? Any day now UT will learn whether it, together with aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, has won a contract to manage the lab. The University of California has run Los Alamos since 1943, when the lab was secretly created under the Manhattan Project. Recent security lapses and other troubles led the Department of Energy, which owns Los Alamos, to hold its first-ever competition for the contract. UC is fighting to keep the job. Just as UT has teamed with Lockheed, so UC has found an industrial partner, San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp. For the UT System, the potential benefits are Texas-sized. The system would gain prestige from co-managing a crown jewel of the nation's research laboratories. It would have a stronger voice in discussions on national science policy. Los Alamos would give UT an edge in recruiting scientists, professors and students, and UT could tap into millions more in federal research dollars. UT System officials call their pursuit of the Los Alamos contract a historic opportunity. "The work of Los Alamos is fundamental to our national security. As one of the finest institutions in the country, we have a duty to pursue this proposal," James Huffines, chairman of the governing Board of Regents, said in May, when the system decided to team up with Lockheed. But with the rewards come risks. The University of California's image has suffered from the run of problems at Los Alamos. Security breaches last year – including reports of two lost computer disks that, it turns out, never existed – led to a seven-month shutdown of the lab. The government gave UC an unsatisfactory rating, and, as a result, UC received only a third of its normal $9 million annual management fee. "It's still possible to receive those benefits of collaboration. However, the bottom line is that place is a mess," said Doug Roberts, a computer scientist who retired from Los Alamos in July. He runs a popular Web log, or blog, for employees called "LANL: The Real Story." Academic side UT officials say they would oversee the academic side of the lab, while Lockheed Martin would handle security and day-to-day operations, which have been the problem areas for UC. Some national lab experts, however, note that UT still faces risks because science and safety go hand in hand. For instance, a lab employee can be injured while doing research. There are also concerns about an industrial-academic team running a national lab. Corporate involvement is certainly nothing new to major universities – consider all the company-sponsored funding on campuses for research, buildings and the like. But some professors and students wonder how academic and scientific freedom – cherished values in higher education – would be respected by a for-profit partner. Then, corporate partnership or not, some professors, students and others say a university system shouldn't be in the nuclear weapons business at all. "We don't like the idea of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and we attend a public university that wants to run one of the largest makers of nuclear weapons in the world," said Jim Spangler, a UT-Austin senior who is spokesman of a student watchdog group, UT Watch. The UT System says it would oversee the research side of Los Alamos, which does both classified and unclassified work. UT would be in charge of peer review – scrutinizing the research methods and findings of Los Alamos scientists – and doing some research itself. Toward that goal, the UT System has formed a network with 18 other universities and systems across the country to help with research. If Los Alamos has a project related to, say, metallurgy, it could ask the Colorado School of Mines (one of the university partners) to do the research. Such research could take place at the universities or at Los Alamos. UT campuses and other schools in the network would mentor junior scientists. Students, faculty and scientists would also have the chance to do research at Los Alamos. And scientists at Los Alamos might spend a few months at a campus to conduct research and teach. The work stands to benefit UT immensely, some say. "The University of Texas has a tremendous opportunity of having its name associated with, in my opinion, one of the greatest scientific institutions in the world," said Warren F. Miller, a former deputy director at Los Alamos who is now an administrator at the University of New Mexico. "I think it will definitely improve the science and research and prestige of the University of Texas." Money for research Then there's the money. The new managers will earn up to $79 million a year, almost nine times what UC now earns. (UT says its share of the fee would go back into research at Los Alamos.) UT would also have access to millions more dollars in federal research – something that big research universities rely upon. Government watchdogs say there's also a benefit to having different contractors run the nation's two nuclear weapons design labs – Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. The UC System now runs both, although the Livermore contract will also be put out to bid in the future. But the prestige would not come without hazards. Misplaced computer drives, unauthorized spending, accidents – these are the headaches that UC has had to deal with. There's also the famous 1999 case involving scientist Wen Ho Lee, who was wrongly accused of selling secrets. Investigators in the case found management problems at the lab. Last year, the lab was shut down for seven months after reports of missing computer disks (which, it turns out, never existed) and a laser accident that injured an intern. The lab also needs environmental cleanup after its 60-plus years of operation. UT officials say the problems at Los Alamos concern areas that they wouldn't manage – the job would fall to Lockheed. Chancellor Mark Yudof has said: "Our legal liability is no more than we assume every day in the operation of our campuses. In contrast with these limited risks, the potential benefits are immense." Plus, UT is not entirely new to the nuclear arena. The flagship, UT-Austin, is home to a research nuclear reactor. UT has also done research before at Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratory, also in New Mexico. But Peter Stockton, an investigator with the Project on Government Oversight, a federal government watchdog group, says that just being associated with Los Alamos would be liability enough. "They do risk the fact they're talking over kind of a broken system there, and if they don't get it up and running, then they can get their reputation tarnished," said Mr. Stockton, who was an adviser to former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson. Mr. Roberts, the former Los Alamos employee, said the lab is "in dire need of an overhaul," at least on the operations side. But there's also a problem of low morale and high turnover, he said. Retirements are up at the lab, due to an aging work force and concerns about the lab's future, including the pension system and other benefits. Dr. Miller, the lab's former deputy director, said it's impossible to promise there will never be another accident or missing piece of classified data. "The risk is always associated as to whether some unknown, unpredicted controversy might come along," he said, adding, "I happen to think the benefit is greater than the risk." Some groups in Texas and California have protested any university involvement with a nuclear weapons lab. 'Immoral alliance' Universities should pursue research for the greater good, said Karen Hadden, chairwoman of Peace Action Texas. "This completely flies in the face of that more noble undertaking. It is inappropriate for a university to pursue research that leads to the building of nuclear bombs." The issue has been divisive within the University of California, and the subject of several forums and debates. UC's Academic Senate has polled members every few years. Last year, two-thirds said they favored UC competing for contracts at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. But most faculty did not want UC to delegate the business, security and environmental safety aspects of the labs to an industrial partner. Some politicians, professors and students question whether UT or UC could stay independent in a partnership with industry. "It's a totally unholy, immoral alliance," said state Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, who has asked the UT System regents to abandon the bid. "University systems should not be going to bed as partners with the nuclear weapons complex." Case for universities The government is already using university/industry teams at national labs that do not focus on nuclear weapons. The thinking is that while universities excel at research, they're not experts in management and safety. This year, the contract to run Idaho National Laboratory went to a consortium led by Battelle Memorial Institute, a nonprofit company, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (The Texas A&M University System lost its bid for the contract and was on a team with Bechtel and two other companies.) There's a strong case for getting universities involved and not leaving the labs to contractors, said Michael Witherell, former director of Fermi National Laboratory in Illinois. "As a nation, do we really want the development of nuclear weapons to be done by those who have a financial interest in what is being developed? Do we want military contractors making those decisions?" Dr. Witherell added, "I think it actually is important for universities to maintain a relationship with the national laboratories. It's important for the nation." The growing trend of university/business partnerships – outside the national labs – is a hot potato on campuses, and has raised questions among academics and ethicists. One early controversial deal was UC-Berkeley's $25 million agreement in 1998 with a biotechnology company called Novartis. The company funded research in an entire biology department in return for first dibs on licensing promising inventions. Critics said the arrangement jeopardized the department's academic freedom and integrity. An external review found the deal did not cause great harm, but that similar ones should be avoided in the future. But a Berkeley/Novartis situation can't be compared to Los Alamos and its bidders, according to Sheldon Krimsky, a Tufts University professor who studies corporate research conflicts on campuses. With a national lab where there's federal oversight, Dr. Krimsky said. "It's such a different entity we cannot apply the same standards. It's truly difficult to know how the arrangement is going to work. Is this kind of partnership going to affect other aspects of the university?" That is, would the relationship with Lockheed encourage UT to take on other confidential research projects? Will a culture of secrecy seep into other areas of the university system? Daniel Levine, a psychology professor at the University of Texas at Arlington, said he's not familiar with the Los Alamos details, but that the issue raises more universal concerns. "Certainly, universities should not be apart from the world and need to be tied into other institutions," Dr. Levine said. "But if the corporations push them too far so they don't feel independent, and the researchers can't play an advisory role ... that's not good." Dr. Krimsky suggests that if UT wins the contract, it should build a firewall between the work at Los Alamos and the work on its campuses. That would give some protection, he said, so that "secrecy won't flow from [Los Alamos] to other parts of the university." Both the UT-Lockheed and UC-Bechtel partnerships have created new corporations that would run Los Alamos. UT's university network is also a separate entity and would not overlap with the other programs and departments within the UT System, officials say. "Those safeguards have been addressed very vigorously with Lockheed Martin," UT spokesman Michael Warden said. The man who would run Los Alamos for the UT-Lockheed team, C. Paul Robinson, has said he would seek assurance from Lockheed that science and the national interest, not corporate interests, come first. Dr. Robinson had such an agreement when he was the director of Sandia lab, which is also run by Lockheed Martin. Back in May, when UT decided to pursue the bid, Chancellor Yudof expressed deep confidence about the system's prospects. "We wouldn't be entering," he said, "if we didn't think we would be successful." E-mail hhacker@dallasnews.com -------- POLITICS -------- investigations French spy service warned US about bogus Niger uranium claim: ex-official LOS ANGELES (AFP) Dec 11, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051211165752.g3xe9lib.html France's spy service tried for months to warn the CIA that there was no evidence to support a US allegation that Iraq had tried to purchase nuclear weapons material in Africa, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday, quoting a French former intelligence official. For more than a year before US President George W. Bush declared in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear weapons material in Niger, France, in previously undisclosed, secret exchanges beginning in 2001, repeatedly warned that the charges were bogus, according to its retired chief of counter-intelligence Alain Chouet. The French conclusions were reached after extensive on-the-ground investigations in Niger and other former French colonies, where the uranium mines are controlled by French companies, said Chouet, former head of France's Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure, who told the Times that Paris had investigated the claims at the CIA's request. The CIA sought France's help in 2001 and 2002 because French firms dominate the uranium business internationally and former French colonies lead the world in production of the strategic mineral. France was particularly sensitive to the assertion about Iraq trying to obtain nuclear materials given the role that French companies play in uranium mining in France's former colonies, the daily wrote. "In France, we've always been very careful about both problems of uranium production in Niger and Iraqi attempts to get uranium from Africa," Chouet told the newspaper. "After the first Gulf War, we were very cautious with that problem, as the French government didn't care to be accused of maintaining relations with (Iraqi President) Saddam (Hussein) in that field." A US official contacted by the newspaper said that Chouet's revelation was "at odds with our understanding of the issue." -------- ACTIVISTS When Will There Be a Requiem for Radioactive Toothbrushes? December 11, 2005 http://www.blather.net/north/archives/2005/12/title_to_be_decided_1.html This is Torbjorn Davidsen: artist, actor, protestor, Nordmann, but most of all a father. On the day that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its director Dr Mohamed ElBaradei were awarded the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize, he made a strong individual protest, by carrying a gravestone 20 kilometres on his back, to put on the lawn of the Nobel Institute. The IAEA have actively promoted the directive Euratom 96/29, an agreement between all EU countries (except the UK) to allow radioactive waste to be used in consumer products. Norway is not in the EU, and could outlaw the importation of, or trade in, any such products, but only if that does not go against any prior international agreements. As Norway has the European Economic Area (EEA) agreement with the EU, it does not look as if she could keep these products out. Under the directive, it is permitted to mix radioactive waste into all consumer goods apart from food, children's toys, jewellery and cosmetics. But Torbjorn is disturbed that radioactive waste could still go into the manufacture of his daughter Vilde's toothbrush, bicycle or glasses. He wishes to see this directive dead, and is prepared to do what he can to bury it. It was a cold December morning, outside the Nobel Institute on Drammensveien in Oslo, and snow was attaching itself to Alfred Nobel outside its doors. Torbjorn's 20k trek with the gravestone, from Nesodden by street and by ferry, came to an end here, on the Institute's lawn. His physical feat completed, Torbjorn put the heavy gravestone on the grass and laid a wreath, with a Norwegian flag. A candle was also placed there. The gravestone, which almost looks like it belongs here in this otherwise unoccupied space, tells us that Euratom 96/29 was born on 13 May 1996, and died on 10 December 2005 (today). Torbjorn left the gravestone to an uncertain fate (what will the authorities do with it?), and walked over to Oslo City Hall, where he knew Dr ElBaradei would be receiving the Peace Prize at 1pm. Outside, the police band were tuning up their brass instruments. Greenpeace campaigners, in yellow and black 'nuke' costumes, stood opposite City Hall, protesting the awarding of the prize because they are resolutely anti-nuclear. "Nuclear power = nuclear bombs" is their slogan. If you are interested, you can read their press release on this protest (in Norwegian) and their document Extended Greenpeace statement on the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Dr Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency (in English) for their views. Torbjorn greeted the Greenpeace protestors, and here you can see his world meet theirs. We all stood in the cold, waiting for VIPs to arrive in limousines. In the end, two very ordinary Oslo taxis pulled up, and Dr ElBaradei and his colleagues stepped out. I was too far away to get a photo of him, but Torbjorn's own video-cameraman was positioned close to the red carpet. Today's footage will be used for a film about Euratom 96/29; previous to today's event, Torbjorn interviewed Dr Chris Busby on film about this issue. Dr Busby is a British scientist who has been campaigning against Euratom 96/29. This footage can be seen online, linked to Torbjorn Davidsen's press release. I stood around and observed Torbjorn observe later proceedings. Unremarkable-looking dignitaries flowed into City Hall, the Swedish ambassador's car glided towards us in the falling snow, and the band played "The Winner Takes It All".