NucNews - December 28, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety Police, Fire Crews Called to Scottish Nuclear Plant REUTERS UK: December 28, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/34232/newsDate/28-Dec-2005/story.htm LONDON - Police and fire crews were called to a British Energy nuclear power station in Scotland after workers reported "anomalous behaviour" as they disposed of spent fuel rods, a company spokesman said on Friday. No one was evacuated and production continued at the Torness plant, about 40 km east of the Scottish capital, Edinburgh, after the incident at 2050 GMT on Thursday, the spokesman said. He said an investigation was under way into the behaviour of fuel rods stored in a pond at the plant, where staff noticed the rods doing something unusual. "We are looking into what has triggered this anomalous behaviour," the spokesman said. "British Energy staff are investigating and will continue to do so overnight." He added that no one had been in danger during the incident. "Nobody has been evacuated," the spokesman added. "Both reactors are still on." Torness opened in 1988 and employs nearly 500 people. One of its two reactors was shut for seven months in May 2002 after engineers found gas circulator faults. British Energy is the country's biggest electricity producer, with eight nuclear power stations and one coal plant. -------- china Nuclear Plant Now Overshadows China Protest Village Story by Chris Buckley REUTERS CHINA : December 28, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/34220/newsDate/28-Dec-2005/story.htm BEIJING - Chinese government officials are pushing forward with a coal-fired power station that sparked a bloody protest in southern Guangdong and have now scheduled a nuclear power plant close to where villagers died. At least three residents of Dongzhou village were shot dead by police and troops on Dec. 6 in a violent standoff over the coal-fired Honghaiwan power station. Some locals and outside groups say more were killed. Officials and armed police continued to patrol the village and tail family of the dead men on Friday, one villager said. "They're treating us like enemies," said the villager, who gave his surname as Lin. Senior provincial officials have visited the Honghaiwan power plant and said it must be completed on schedule by late 2006, according to a manager at the plant who refused to give her name. On Sunday, Guangdong province's deputy secretary-general, Lin Ying, also visited the plant. "He said that the provincial government fully supports construction of the Shanwei power generation project and will ensure that power plant construction accelerates under conditions of social stability," said a report on the Web site of the Guangdong Red Bay Generation Co., which is building the plant. And three days after the shootings, Shanwei, the city that controls Dongzhou, announced a "framework agreement" for a much bigger and possibly contentious project -- a nuclear power plant. "Our city will grasp this opportunity and apply all our energies ... to promote an early start to the nuclear project," said the mayor of Shanwei, Wang Menghui, according to a report on the city government Web site. The nuclear power complex will be built by the state-owned Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Co. and cover three sites -- the first one about 30 km (18 miles) from Dongzhou. Beijing, struggling with power shortages that pose a threat to economic growth, has outlined an ambitious plan to build dozens of reactors over the next couple of decades and quadruple its nuclear power capacity by 2020. Observers said that in Dongzhou and many parts of rural China the clash between projects to fuel growth and rural citizens increasingly embracing ideas of political rights is fuelling rising protest, even as China's leaders promise a more "harmonious society". "A lot of these people are losing faith that the central leadership is behind them, so they feel they have to solve problems on their own," said Kevin O'Brien, an expert on Chinese rural protest at the University of California, Berkeley. "It seems to me that protest is becoming more violent, more confrontational, and more organised," he said, noting that many rural protesters were also recruiting outside help from lawyers, activists and human rights organisations. Two days after the bloody confrontation of Dec. 6, Shanwei's Communist Party chief, Rong Tiewen, told officials to make a priority of preserving social stability and preventing signs of protest, especially in Dongzhou. "We must comprehensively monitor unstable elements," he told officials, according to a transcript on the Shanwei city government Web site. He ordered officials to "tail, repatriate, and deal with" any protesters who try to leave villagers for the city, which is hosting a folk arts festival. "Dongzhou must be a focus," he said. A relative of one of the three men who was shot said their families had all agreed to accept 200,000 yuan ($25,000) in compensation for their deaths. "The condition was that we keep quiet about what happened," he said. He asked that his surname not be reported. Since last year, China has seen protests involving many thousands of villagers against power projects in western China, as well as growing protests over land and pollution. A senior police official said in August that China's officially reported "mass incidents" grew from 58,000 to 74,000 in the previous year. But O'Brien said estimates of protest numbers were difficult to verify. "The sheer number isn't as important as the fact that there's this emergence of rights consciousness, where people think of themselves as citizens, not subjects," he said. (US $1 = 8.073 Yuan) ---- China to supply more nuclear power plants to Pakistan December 28, 2005 (Japan Economic Newswire) http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-kyodo-news-summary-9-/2005/dec/1244327.htm MIANWALI, Pakistan - Sun Qin, chairman of the China Atomic Energy Authority, on Wednesday assured Pakistan that China will continue cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy and participate in Pakistan's ambitious plan to set up 8,800-megawatt nuclear energy by 2030 to meet growing energy needs. Speaking at the concrete pouring ceremony for the Chinese-aided 300-megawatt Chashma Nuclear Power Plant-2 (C-2) project, about 175 kilometers southwest of Islamabad in southern Punjab, Qin said that China has cooperated with Pakistan in the nuclear power plant construction and will participate in the proposed Pakistani plan to set up more power plants. -------- depleted uranium Russia could up share of global depleted uranium market to 45% by 2010 Dec 28, 2005 (Interfax) http://www.interfax.com/3/117383/news.aspx TOMSK. Russia could increase its share of the global market for the treatment of depleted uranium to 45% by 2010, from 40% at present, Vladimir Korotkevich, director of the state-owned Siberian Chemical Combine, told reporters. "Rusatom [the Russian nuclear industry agency], with its surplus isotope separation capacity, and centrifuge technologies, which are more advanced and less costly than diffusion technologies, could increase its presence on the world market for low-enriched power plant uranium," Korotkevich said. He also said that Techsnabexport, the Russian government's authorized exporter of nuclear materials and nuclear power plant fuel, had contracts worth more than $3 billion annually to process depleted uranium hexafluoride from abroad. This does not include contracts signed under the Megatons to Megawatts deal with the United States. Russia's Urals, Krasnoyarsk and Angarsk electro-chemicals combines also possess isotope separation capacity. Korotkevich said competitors were making more frequent attempts to sideline Russia from the world depleted uranium processing market. Take, for example, an incident in Le Havre at the start of December, when Greenpeace activists held up the loading of 450 tonnes of depleted uranium onto a Russian ship. "This coincided with major announcements inside Russia to the effect that Rusatom was importing either radioactive waste or spent fuel for burial. This again goes to show that these actions were planned and paid for by one source," he said. Korotkovich also said that Techsnabexport's hexafluoride import contracts did not breach Article 48 of the Federal Law on Environmental Protection because radioactive materials are not being brought into Russia for storage or burial. Nor do they violate Article 11 of the same law, which guarantees the rights of citizens to the protection of the environment, because the material is being processed under licenses issued by the state oversight bodies. It is on this basis that the Siberian Chemicals Combine conducts all of its activity, including the processing and storage of uranium hexafluoride, Korotkevich said. ---- Heads roll at Veterans Administration Mushrooming depleted uranium (DU) scandal blamed by Bob Nichols Project Censored Award Winner 12/28/05 http://www.sfbayview.com/012605/headsroll012605.shtml Considering the tons of depleted uranium used by the U.S., the Iraq war can truly be called a nuclear war. Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter charged Monday that the reason Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier this month was the growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions in the Iraq War. Writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter No. 169, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, stated, “The real reason for Mr. Principi’s departure was really never given, however a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the US Military.” Bernklau continued, “This malady (from uranium munitions), that thousands of our military have suffered and died from, has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now being revealed.” He added, “Out of the 580,400 soldiers who served in GW1 (the first Gulf War), of them, 11,000 are now dead! By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on Permanent Medical Disability. This astounding number of ‘Disabled Vets’ means that a decade later, 56% of those soldiers who served have some form of permanent medical problems!” The disability rate for the wars of the last century was 5 percent; it was higher, 10 percent, in Viet Nam. “The VA Secretary (Principi) was aware of this fact as far back as 2000,” wrote Bernklau. “He, and the Bush administration have been hiding these facts, but now, thanks to Moret’s report, (it) ... is far too big to hide or to cover up!” “Terry Jamison, Public Affairs Specialist, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs, at the VA Central Office, recently reported that ‘Gulf Era Veterans’ now on medical disability, since 1991, number 518,739 Veterans,” said Berklau. “The long-term effects have revealed that DU (uranium oxide) is a virtual death sentence,” stated Berklau. “Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist, who retired from the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved with the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the soldiers (from the 2003 Iraq War) as ‘spectacular … and a matter of concern!’” When asked if the main purpose of using DU was for “destroying things and killing people,” Fulk was more specific: “I would say it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people!” Principi could not be reached for comment prior to deadline. References 1. Depleted uranium: “Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets: A death sentence here and abroad” by Leuren Moret, http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml. 2. Veterans for Constitutional Law, 112 Jefferson Ave., Port Jefferson NY 11777, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director, (516) 474-4261, fax 516-474-1968. 3. Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter. Email Gary Kohls, gkohls@cpinternet.com, with “Subscribe” in the subject line. Email Bob Nichols at bobnichols@cox.net. -------- india India tests nuclear-capable missile Wed Dec 28, 2005 7:59 AM ET (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051228/wl_sthasia_afp/indiamilitarymissile_051228125920 NEW DELHI - India successfully tested its nuclear-capable, short-range Dhanush ballistic missile, defence officials said. The locally-developed missile, a naval version of the surface-to-surface Prithvi, was tested on Wednesday from a ship in the Bay of Bengal off the east coast of Orissa state, the Press Trust of India said, quoting official sources. Dhanush -- which means bow in Hindi -- has a range of 250 kilometres (156 miles) and can carry a payload of 500 kilograms (1,100 pounds), the news agency said. India, which conducted a series of nuclear tests in 1998, has already developed and deployed two ballistic missiles and a surface missile. It hopes to cap the programme with a 5,000-kilometre (3,125-mile) range ballistic missile to give it the capability of striking beyond South Asia. Nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan frequently test-fire missiles but as part of a slow-moving peace process have agreed to inform each other in advance. -------- iran Nuking Iran With the UN's Blessing Only the American people can stop it by Jorge Hirsch Antiwar.com December 28, 2005 http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8312 In the "global war on terror," Iran is the next target, having been designated by the U.S. State Department [.pdf] as "the most active state sponsor of terrorism" in the world. The United Nations has given its blessing, and the U.S. will fill in the blanks. Before we analyze this, however, let us ask ourselves: why not Florida instead? In fact, Florida should be way ahead on the list. Family considerations should not play a role in U.S. policy decisions. Let's compare the cases. For Florida: * At least 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers had Florida connections. * Thirteen of the 19 were in Florida before Sept.11. * Eight of the hijackers took flying lessons in Venice, Fla. * Five of the hijackers trained in Florida gyms. * Two of the hijackers got drunk in a Hollywood, Fla. bar a few days before the attack. Instead, the connections between 9/11 and Iran are much more tenuous, according to the 9/11 Commission: * "Senior al-Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives" in 1993. * "Iran facilitated the transit of al-Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and some of these were future 9/11 hijackers." * "We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack." The 9/11 hijackers used planes, not explosives. So I very much hope that the Pentagon is revising its Nuclear Strike Plan. A precision-guided missile with a nuclear warhead - or a low-yield nuclear gravity bomb - should be effective in vaporizing both aboveground and underground facilities of Huffman Aviation School in Venice, Fla., with minimal collateral damage. The fact is, terrorists do not need "state sponsors" to do their job. The 9/11 hijackers lived in the U.S., rented apartments, opened bank accounts, got drivers licenses, rented cars, took English lessons, had jobs, joined gyms, learned the needed flying skills, bought their box-cutter knives, and blew themselves up in the good old United States. And so will the next terrorists who strike us. Furthermore, some of the 9/11 hijackers lived and studied in Hamburg, Germany. And they met in Madrid. So are Hamburg and Madrid next on the strike list? Does anybody really believe that the "training camps" in Afghanistan played any significant role in 9/11? Can somebody please explain what exactly the 9/11 hijackers learned at those training camps that they couldn't learn elsewhere? Does anybody really believe that the purported meeting, which in fact never took place, of Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague would have played a significant role even if it had taken place? Yet we are embarked in a "global war of terror" in response to the 9/11 attacks that has led to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and is about to lead to a U.S. nuclear attack against Iran. Because make no mistake, an aerial attack on Iran that will include low-yield nuclear bombs is the next step in the "global war on terror," unless something extraordinary happens to derail it. The "Legal" Framework The United States invaded Iraq under the pretext of enforcing UN Security Council resolution (UNSCR) 1441. Bush stated in his address to the nation on March 17, 2003, "On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm." Given that the U.S. was unable, despite strenuous efforts, to obtain a new resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force, Bush continued: "These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. ... The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours." The role of UNSCR 1441 for Iraq will be played by UNSCR 1540 for Iran. UNSCR 1540 In preparation for the Iran strike, the U.S. in April 2004 proposed and the Security Council unanimously adopted this resolution against "the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and their means of delivery." The resolution was adopted under Chapter VII of the UN charter, which envisages the use of force to enforce resolutions (unlike resolutions adopted under Chapter VI, which deals with "pacific resolution of disputes"). "Affirming [the Security Council's] resolve to take appropriate and effective actions against any threat to international peace and security caused by the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and their means of delivery," the resolution "decides that all States shall refrain from providing any form of support to non-State actors that attempt to develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer, or use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons and their means of delivery." The United States accuses Iran of having a covert program to develop nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. It states, * "Iran has an offensive biological weapons program in violation of the BWC." * "Iran is acting to retain and modernize key elements of its CW infrastructure to include an offensive CW R&D capability." And * "Iran continues its extensive efforts to develop the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction." The U.S. further accuses Iran of being the principal sponsor of terrorism in the world, of harboring al-Qaeda members, and of possible links to 9/11. The United States claims for itself the right to act preemptively ("[T]he United States cannot remain idle while danger gathers") and did so in invading Iraq. Well then? You got it. The U.S. will claim the right under Chapter VII of the UN to enforce UNSCR 1540 by aerial bombing of Iran's nuclear and missile facilities ("means of delivery"), once negotiations between Iran and the European Union on Iran's nuclear program reach a stalemate. This time, the U.S. will not even try to obtain explicit UN authorization to act, since it knows it is not in the cards. It didn't matter last time, so why bother now? A supporting role will be provided by UNSC "anti-terrorism" resolution 1373, adopted after Sept. 11, also under UN Chapter VII. According to UNSCR 1373, "all States should prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other countries and their citizens." It also decides that all states shall "[r]efrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists." The United States and Israel accuse Iran of supporting and supplying weapons to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah. There is, of course, a minor point to observe. Iran denies all these accusations, and the U.S. has not supplied proof for any of them. In a full-page ad published in the New York Times, Iran explains rather convincingly why it wants to enrich uranium and why it is not interested in pursuing nuclear weapons. In its report to the United Nations pursuant to UN resolution 1373 it details its efforts and laws to combat terrorism, and in its report for UN resolution 1455 (on al-Qaeda) it denies any connection with al-Qaeda. In its report to the UN pursuant to resolution 1540, it describes in detail its efforts for nonproliferation and reminds that it is a signatory to all international nonproliferation treaties and party to all international instruments banning WMD. Iran denies that it supports any terrorist activities anywhere and says that it only gives "moral support" to Hezbollah. While the United States and the European Union have labeled Hezbollah a terrorist organization, the United Nations has not, and it is certainly not regarded as such in the Muslim word. All of Iran's statements to the UN are ignored by the U.S., which states (without proof), that "Iran's pursuit of these deadly weapons, despite its adherence to treaties that ban them marks it as a rogue state, and it will remain so until it completely, verifiably, and irreversibly dismantles its WMD-related programs." Remember Iraq? The fact is, resolutions 1540 and 1373 together with baseless accusations do not give the U.S. a right to attack Iran. However, bombing Iran under these resolutions is no different from invading Iraq under resolution 1441. Since the UN did not condemn the Iraq invasion after it happened (and even "blessed it" with resolutions 1483, 1500, 1511, and 1546), the U.S. can safely assume that it will do the same in this case. Concerning the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, as discussed in an earlier column, it is technically "legal" for the United States to do so. As stressed in U.S. documents [.pdf], "no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict." (This of course ignores an "Advisory Opinion" from the International Court of Justice). Since Iran was declared in "noncompliance" with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty on Sept. 24, 2005, the "negative security assurance" issued by the U.S. to the UN in 1995 (UNSCR 984) promising to refrain from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states no longer applies to Iran. The Practical Framework Even if it is not "more illegal" to nuke Iran than it was to invade Iraq, we may still ask: (a) can it happen?, (b) will it happen?, and (c) how will it all get started? As discussed in previous columns, all the elements are in place so that it can happen. The main points: 1. The president alone (without consulting Congress) has authority to initiate an aerial attack against Iran's facilities under the War Powers Resolution and Senate Joint Resolution 23 of 2001. 2. The president has sole authority to initiate the use of nuclear weapons in a conflict, or to delegate that authority to others. This has always been U.S. policy. 3. There appears to be no one in the upper echelons of the Bush administration who would have any qualms about a preemptive aerial attack against Iran. In addition, among these top officials there are several who have a history of advocating the offensive use of nuclear weapons, and there is not a single one known to hold the opposing point of view. So it is clear that it can happen. The answer to "will it happen?" is equally clear. There is a reason Iran was included in the "axis of evil" speech of 2001, and why there is so much administration rhetoric against Iran. Such talk has prepared the public for an attack. Very recent developments in relation with Turkey suggest that the time is drawing near. Turkey played an important role in the preparations for war against Iraq, and it appears to be playing a role again in the preparations for an Iran offensive. Furthermore, the United States' stance with respect to Iran's nuclear ambitions is clearly designed to bring about a diplomatic impasse. The U.S. is not negotiating with Iran directly, and it emphasizes that it is not part of any possible compromise. Once a diplomatic stalemate is reached, does anybody believe that the U.S. will just sit back and watch Iran start to enrich uranium, or even continue reprocessing, after all the statements it has made that this is unacceptable? Can't you already hear the future words of our fearless leader on announcing the attack on Iran? "I believe a president must confront problems and not pass them on to future presidents and future generations. I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch." As for how it will all get started, there is room for speculation. One possibility is that Israel will pull the trigger, with a surprise (conventional) bombing of Bushehr and other facilities, which could "force" the U.S. to join in to protect Israel and U.S. forces in Iraq from Iranian retaliation. Recent statements by Israeli officials hint at this possibility, but it could be a smokescreen. Alternatively, Israel and the U.S. could attack jointly, or the U.S. could attack alone. This could be triggered by Iran resuming enrichment activities, or just by a Russian veto on measures against Iran at the Security Council. It is likely to be accompanied with some new U.S. "revelation" about Iran's alleged chemical/biological weapons programs and its alleged connections to terrorists. If the U.S. participates in the initial attack, it is likely to first give some kind of ultimatum to Iran, just as it gave an unacceptable ultimatum to Iraq. Unlike Israel, the U.S. still pretends to abide by some international norms of conduct and would not launch a surprise attack. The ultimatum could be that Iran not only stop all uranium reprocessing and enrichment activities, but that it also destroy all its nuclear installations and missiles under U.S. and international supervision or face the possibility of an attack "at a time of our choosing." And even if Iran were to accept, the attack would not be averted, because disarmament is not the issue any more than it was in the case of Iraq. Recall that Iraq was not spared even after agreeing to destroy its missiles and doing so. It didn't help one bit. Other possible scenarios that could get the process going include a terrorist act against Americans that the U.S. can blame on Iran; some major unrest in Iraq that the U.S. can blame on Iran; some new revelation of "classified information" that Iran is "threatening" the U.S.; or a Tonkin-Gulf-like incident. Why Nukes Will Be Used As discussed in previous columns, over the past several years the Bush administration has laid out a new Nuclear Posture for the United States that essentially guarantees that low-yield nuclear weapons will be used in the upcoming conflict with Iran. The essence can be summarized in the following statement in the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations [.pdf]: "Integrating conventional and nuclear attacks will ensure the most efficient use of force and provide U.S. leaders with a broader range of strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation." In other words, the new Nuclear Posture has completely erased the distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are now "integrated" with conventional weapons and will be used if they are militarily expedient. Given that there are a large number of underground targets in Iran to be destroyed, and that using nuclear bombs will be expected to deter Iran from responding with missiles and conventional forces to the U.S. attack, it is almost inconceivable that nuclear bombs would not be used. Why isn't America worried sick about this possibility? There are three reasons. 1. People think that if the U.S. planned to do something as drastic as using nuclear bombs, there would be some advance warning. In fact, there has been, but it is subtle enough that it will only become clear after the fact. The code words are all our options. They have been used by the administration in connection with resolving the Iran situation, in connection with using nuclear weapons in response to WMD, and in connection with predicting future attacks on a state suspected of having WMD. 2. Most people associate nuclear bombs with enormous destruction, on the scale of Hiroshima or larger. Hence they find it inconceivable that the U.S. would use nuclear bombs against Iran or other non-nuclear nations. They don't realize that there are low-yield nuclear weapons (with yields as small as 1/1,000 of Hiroshima) and that the "nuclear hitmen" in the administration expect to use such "small" nuclear bombs against Iranian underground installations, causing little "collateral damage." 3. The few people who do realize that this may happen are not worried because they consider it to be in the best interests of the United States, as the nuclear hitmen do. Why the Nuclear Hitmen Are Doing This Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the other nuclear hitmen are not completely irrational nuts, nor are they completely stupid nor even completely evil. They sincerely believe that nuking Iran is in the best long-term interests of the United States and of the world, for the following reasons: The New American Century This vision of American's preeminent role in the world holds that "we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise." They realize there will be some "costs" in nuking Iran, but regard those costs as worth paying as part of achieving "America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." No Nuclear Threshold In the minds of the nuclear hitmen, there seems to be no "threshold" for the use of nuclear weapons. This is evident from various documents and speeches. If a nuclear bomb will kill the same or a smaller number of people than a conventional bomb, it is equally usable or even preferable "[f]or rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms." There is absolutely no consideration given to the fact that nukes are a qualitatively different kind of weapon. "Use of nuclear weapons within a theater requires that nuclear and conventional plans be integrated to the greatest extent possible." Nuclear Deterrent On the other hand, the nuclear hitmen do realize that for much of the rest of the world there is a qualitative difference between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. Much of the world regards nuclear weapons as unusable except in the most extreme circumstances. This, however, presents a contradiction to the stated main goal of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal: to influence an adversary's actions. As the Nuclear Posture Review states: "U.S. nuclear forces will now be used to dissuade adversaries from undertaking military programs or operations that could threaten U.S. interests or those of allies and friends. ...Desired capabilities for nuclear weapons systems in flexible, adaptable strike plans include options for variable and reduced yields, high accuracy, and timely employment. These capabilities would help deter enemy use of WMD or limit collateral damage, should the United States have to defeat enemy WMD capabilities." However, to "dissuade" and "deter," the nuclear option has to be credible, and if most people believe there is a sharp nuclear threshold and nuclear weapons are unusable, it follows that nuclear weapons are useless to dissuade and deter. The value of the U.S. nuclear arsenal to dissuade and deter adversary actions that do not involve an existential threat to the United States needs to be established, since it has no credibility. That is what nuking Iran will achieve, and that is why the nuclear hitmen believe it is a worthy goal. The Bush Legacy Every president naturally longs to leave a worthy and lasting legacy. None of Bush's actions so far is likely to be regarded as worthwhile in the future: quite the opposite. History is likely to judge his performance harshly and in particular significantly worse than his father's, especially if the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate. However, there is no question that crossing the nuclear threshold for the first time in 60 years will change the world and overshadow all the other actions of this administration. To the extent that Bush believes such an action to be in the long-term interests of the United States, for the reasons outlined above, it is unlikely he would want to defer this "honor" to a future president, and particularly not to his kid brother. The Consequences of Nuking Iran It is arguably possible that the nuclear hitmen's most optimistic expectations will be realized: the U.S. will succeed in crossing the nuclear threshold by using a few low-yield nuclear bombs against Iranian installations, without resulting in significant escalation, and achieve its goals of destroying Iran's military capabilities and establishing the value of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. It is also certainly possible, and in my view much more likely, that the results will be disastrous, as follows: (1) A very large number of people will die. For most of the world, the use of nuclear weapons is a major qualitative step, even if the yield and destruction of the nuclear weapons used is the same or less than that of conventional weapons. As a consequence, this action is likely to bring about an "irrational" reaction from Iran. No U.S. threat will deter Iran from retaliating any way it can - by firing all its missiles and launching a massive invasion of Iraq with millions of poorly armed but determined Basij militia. The U.S. will "have to" respond with large-scale bombing, including with nuclear bombs, causing potentially hundreds of thousands of Iranian casualties. This is likely to cause an immediate, large upheaval in the Middle East, with unforeseeable consequences. These events are not likely to be forgotten by the 1 billion-large worldwide Muslim community. (2) America will be a pariah state. The administration hopes that the use of nuclear bombs in this conflict will be viewed as "unavoidable" to save lives, ours and theirs. The world will not buy that interpretation. A cursory search on the Internet today makes it clear that it is already widely believed that the upcoming nuking of Iran is an event planned by the Bush administration (e.g., the Philip Giraldi story). Disclosures that will surely come after the fact will make this premeditation even more evident (like the Downing Street memos in the case of Iraq). The planned use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state in the name of nuclear nonproliferation, based on false accusations and concocted scenarios, will not be condoned by the world. In the case of Iraq, the realization that the invasion had been planned in advance and Americans had been lied to has led to public disenchantment with the Bush administration, yet it has not led to universal condemnation. Attacking Iran will be different, because the use of nukes will affect every man, woman, and child in the world. The world will regard the Bush administration as criminal. Because Americans elected Bush for a second term and did nothing to impede his actions, all Americans will share responsibility in the eyes of the world. Each of us could have done more to prevent this from happening. This is likely to result in a worldwide shunning of everything American. A tidal wave of boycott America fervor is likely to result, and no matter how powerful America is today, the rest of the world acting together can bring America to its knees and spell the end of all dreams of a "New American Century." (3) Anti-Semitism will surge worldwide. Israel will be regarded as having played a key role in these events, whether or not it participates in the military action. Israeli politicians have made it abundantly clear that Iran's nuclear ambitions represent an "existential threat" to Israel, so Israel will be regarded as instigator, given the strength of the Israeli lobby in America. Jewish organizations around the world have been supportive of the Israeli stance and will be regarded as complicit. As a consequence, a resurgence of worldwide anti-Semitism will occur, even in America. The old charges that Jews have a divided allegiance to their home country and to Israel will resurface, and Jewish communities in every country will face hostility and aggression. Just like Bush's invasion of Iraq erased the world's feelings of sympathy to America after the 9/11 attacks, so will the nuking of Iran erase any remaining feelings of sympathy for the state of Israel. (4) Nuclear terrorism against America will become more likely. The incentive for terrorist groups to use a nuclear weapon against America will be enormous after America uses nuclear weapons, even if only "small" ones, against Iran. No matter how much "counterproliferation" America undertakes, eventually a terrorist group will obtain or manufacture a nuclear bomb. And no matter how large a "deterrent" the American nuclear arsenal is, a single nuclear bombing in an American city will have devastating consequences. Those who argue that nuclear terrorism will happen regardless of whether the U.S. nukes Iran or not should consider the fact that there has never been a chemical terrorist attack against America, despite the fact that chemical weapons have existed for a long time and shouldn't be too hard for terrorist groups to obtain. Could it be related to the fact that America does not use chemical weapons against others? (5) Nuclear proliferation and global nuclear war may ensue. The main reason why nuking Iran will affect every human being is that it will spell the end of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and lead to widespread nuclear proliferation. It will not matter how many eloquent speeches Bush gives afterwards explaining why it was "necessary." It will not matter if the next American president is a pacifist who vows never to do it again. It will not matter if think tanks and scientists and politicians and arms-control organizations and NGOs deplore it as a unique aberration of the Bush administration. The fact is, the entire American system will be seen as having conspired to let this happen. After America has used a nuclear weapon against a non-nuclear country, all the speeches and studies and documents and excuses and promises will not change the facts. All countries will strive to acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. America will prevent some from doing so by military force, but many others will succeed. With no remaining nuclear taboo, and many more countries with nuclear weapons (with a total power of 1 million Hiroshima bombs, hence the potential to destroy humanity many times over), does anybody doubt the outcome? ---- Iran to study Russian nuclear offer Iran is accused of secretly developing nuclear weapons Wednesday 28 December 2005, Reuters http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/35A776BD-E7B8-45D8-9284-BE9ECC5E1C0B.htm Iran has said it will "seriously and enthusiastically" study a Russian proposal aimed at reducing international fears about its nuclear programme. The Russian proposal "will be reviewed seriously and enthusiastically," Javad Vaeedi, the deputy head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told the ISNA students news agency on Wednesday. The remarks were the most positive yet by a senior Tehran official about Moscow's offer to form a joint venture with Iran to enrich uranium in Russia. The Russian offer is backed by the United States and the European Union. It is aimed at easing international concerns that Tehran could make atom bombs from highly-enriched uranium. Iran says it only wants to enrich uranium to a low grade, suitable for use in nuclear power reactors. "In our opinion the Russian proposal could revive some of the unimplemented regulations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for transferring nuclear technology to countries which do not have access to this technology and break the scientific monopoly of this issue," Vaeedi said. Softer tone Striking a much softer tone than recent comments by other Iranian officials, Vaeedi said the Russian proposal could be studied in the framework of an existing agreement with Moscow on supply of enriched uranium for Iran's first atomic reactor at Bushehr, due to come onstream in late 2006. "The new proposal could be studied and its economic, technical and scientific dimensions clarified. The amount of participation of the Iranian side in this plan will be an important indicator," he said. "Whatever meaning the Russian proposal has, it does not mean depriving Iran of its rights," he added. Previously, Iranian officials had poured cold water on the Russian proposal, saying they would not accept any plan which did not allow Iran to carry out a full nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment, on its own soil. But EU diplomats and arms control experts have noted that Tehran had stopped short of outright rejection of the plan, which could weaken Russian opposition to EU and US efforts to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. They say Iran may be willing to drag out talks about the Russian proposal to buy time and good favour. Face-to-face nuclear negotiations between Iran and the EU trio of Britain, Germany and France resumed in Vienna this month and are due to take place again in January. ---- Iran sounds positive note on Russian atomic plan By Paul Hughes Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:47 PM ET (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051228/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_dc TEHRAN - Iran said on Wednesday it would "seriously and enthusiastically" study a Russian proposal aimed at reducing international fears about its nuclear programme, the ISNA students news agency reported. The remarks by Javad Vaeedi, deputy head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, were the most positive yet by a senior Tehran official about Moscow's offer to form a joint venture with Iran to enrich uranium in Russia. The Russian proposal is backed by the United States and the European Union. It is aimed at easing international concerns that Tehran could make atomic bombs from highly enriched uranium, after having concealed a nuclear programme from U.N. inspectors for 18 years until 2003. Iran says it only wants to purify uranium to a lower grade suitable for use in power stations. The Russian proposal "will be reviewed seriously and enthusiastically," Vaeedi told ISNA. "The Russian proposal could revive some of the unimplemented regulations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for transferring nuclear technology to countries which do not have access to this technology, and break the scientific monopoly of this issue." Face-to-face talks between Iran and the "EU3" -- Britain, Germany and France -- on a diplomatic solution to growing tensions over Tehran's nuclear ambitions resumed in Vienna this month after a four-month freeze, and are to resume in January. Previously, Iran poured cold water on the Russian proposal, saying it would not accept any plan which did not allow it to carry out a full nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment, on its own soil. But EU diplomats and arms control experts have noted that Tehran has stopped short of outright rejection of the plan, which could weaken Russian opposition to EU and U.S. efforts to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions. They say Iran may be willing to drag out talks about the Russian proposal to buy time and good favor. Told of Vaeedi's remarks, an EU3 diplomat said they did not sound like any breakthrough in the making. "He seems to see the offer as a chance for Iranian scientists to go to a third country to learn something. That's not our intention -- to transfer know-how on the sensitive stages of enrichment to Iran. Our idea is to meet Iran's commercial energy needs," said the diplomat, asking for anonymity because he is not authorised to speak to the media. U.S. and EU officials hope that having Iranian uranium enriched in Russia would minimise the chance of diversions for development of weapons-grade material. "Iran may be trying to buy time since they know it would be counterproductive to reject Russia's offer outright before January 18," the EU diplomat said, mentioning the mooted date for the next round of talks. "Iran may come to the next talks with a modified proposal for a joint venture in Iran, with a Russian role." Striking a softer tone than other Iranian officials recently, Vaeedi said the Russian proposal could be studied in the framework of an existing agreement with Moscow on supply of enriched uranium for Iran's first atomic reactor at Bushehr, due to come onstream in late 2006. "The new proposal could be studied and its economic, technical and scientific dimensions clarified. The amount of participation of the Iranian side in this plan will be an important indicator," he said. "Whatever meaning the Russian proposal has, it does not mean depriving Iran of its rights." (additional reporting by Mark Heinrich in Vienna) -------- pakistan Pakistan launches nuclear project AQ Khan sparked concern with his nuclear confession Wednesday, 28 December 2005 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4565212.stm Pakistan has begun building a new nuclear power plant in Punjab province. Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz launched work on the 325-megawatt plant in Chashma, which is the second to be built at the site with Chinese help. It was "a milestone" in the history of nuclear technology in Pakistan, Mr Aziz told officials from both countries. The construction follows concern aroused by the confession of a leading Pakistani last year that he leaked nuclear secrets. Dr AQ Khan shocked the nation and sparked international alarm when he publicly confessed to sharing nuclear technology with North Korea, Libya and Iran. Tests Officials say Chashma-2, south of the capital Islamabad, is for peaceful purposes and will follow International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. Pakistan has a parallel nuclear establishment, which runs its nuclear-weapon and missile technology programme. Pakistan's first nuclear power plant was built in 1972 in Karachi with Canadian assistance. Western nations later ceased nuclear co-operation with Islamabad, after it was alleged Pakistan was developing nuclear weapons. Pakistan conducted nuclear weapons tests in 1998. Its rival India launched its first nuclear weapon more than a decade earlier. -------- MILITARY -------- china Alarm over Chinese incursion Pramod Giri Thimphu, December 28, 2005 Hindustan Times http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7598_1583871,000500020006.htm The Chinese are in Bhutan — its soldiers are building roads and bridges deep inside the country and setting off alarms in both Thimphu and Delhi. Over 200 Chinese soldiers crossed into Bhutan in mid-November and since then, the relations between the two countries have been on the edge. Bhutan, which has a 470-km unfenced border with China, considers the unasked-for presence of the Red Army in its territory as a violation of the 1998 Sino-Bhutanese border treaty of peace and tranquillity. Rattled by the developments, the tiny kingdom, which shares a special relationship and a 605-km border with India, has also informed the Indian home ministry. The matter also came up before Bhutan's National Assembly and foreign minister Khandu Wangchuk promised the House that the matter would soon be taken up with the Chinese authorities. On November 13, the Chinese soldiers entered the country’s northern districts, including Paro, and marched 20 km inland, claiming that they had been forced by melting glaciers and heavy snowfall in Tibet to breach the border. But they also went on to infiltrate remote places like Haa, Boomtang and Wangdi Phudrang, which have no human habitation. The Chinese have built pucca bridges in Paro and Haa districts, prompting concern among the people’s representatives from Paro, Haa, Laya, Lunana, Zhemgang and Thimphu. When secretary of international boundaries Dasho Pema Wangchuk took up the issue with the Chinese delegation led by deputy director-general of the Asian department in the China’s ministry of foreign affairs, China just brushed off the apprehensions. “They told the Bhutanese that they were over-reacting and that the roads were being built as part of the economic development programmes for western China,” an Indian intelligence officer said. “India and Bhutan enjoy a special relationship, and the current developments have come as a matter of serious concern for India,” the official added. That the concern is not confined to government circles in Thimphu and Delhi was clear from a recent article in Bhutanese newspaper Kuensel, which said, “There are chances that the Chinese might build more roads further into our territory and gradually claim the land as theirs since they have their roads on our territory.” But why the incursion? Sources said China had been pressing Bhutan to allow it to open its embassy in Thimphu, and the cross-border forays could be a ploy to arm-twist Bhutan into agreeing to it. -------- landmines U.S. No Longer Promoting Landmine Ban Haider Rizvi, OneWorld US Wed Dec 28, 3:29 PM ET (OneWorld) http://news.yahoo.com/s/oneworld/20051228/wl_oneworld/45361248641135805398 UNITED NATIONS, Dec 28 - In 1994, the United States was the first nation to call for the elimination of landmines that killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of innocent people around the world. But that was then. Today, Washington not only stands in opposition to an international treaty that bans the use and production of antipersonnel landmines, but intends to make new ones too. In reversal of its earlier policy, the U.S. is reportedly planning to produce a new generation of landmines called "Spider" by March 2007, a move that has alarmed civil society groups campaigning for a global ban on the use and production of landmines for years. "We are concerned about this," says Alison Bock, president and founder of Landmines Blow!, a U.S.-based independent group. "This would erase many of the positive steps the U.S. has taken in the past." Landmines Blow! has joined a number of other groups in urging the Bush administration to drop its plans for Spider production and instead support the goals of the Mine Ban Treaty. The 1997 treaty, which has been endorsed by nearly 150 countries, calls for a ban on the production, stockpiling, and use of antipersonnel landmines. Major powers among the 40 nations who have not signed the treaty are the United States, Russia, and China. Last month, more than 100 countries sent delegates to an international meeting on landmines in Croatia, but the United States did not. Bock thinks it was wrong on part of the United states to stay away from the meeting. "We believe the U.S. should engage in global discussions on the landmine issue." Ironically, the United States was at the forefront of international efforts to adopt the landmine treaty in the 1990s. It had not used antipersonnel landmines since the 1991 Gulf War and had not exported them to other countries since 1992. The United States would "seek a worldwide agreement as soon as possible to end the use of antipersonnel mines," President Bill Clinton said at the start of his second term in the White House. But the Bush administration reversed that promise last February with the Department of State declaring that landmines still have "a valid and essential role" in protecting U.S. forces in military operations. "No other weapon currently exists that provides all the capabilities provided by landmines," the official statement added. Disappointed with the administration's stance, supporters of the treaty fear that the new policy on landmines might set a bad precedent for other nations who are still outside the fold of the treaty. "It's a step backward for the United States," says Stephen Goose, an arms expert with U.S.-based Human Rights Watch. "While the rest of the world is rushing to embrace an immediate and comprehensive ban, the Bush administration has decided to cling to the weapons in perpetuity," he adds. Goose and others note that the administration often does not use the word landmines while referring to new weapons, such as Spiders, which are designed to blow up automatically after a certain period of time. "These are not safe mines," Goose contends. "They still pose real dangers for civilians." Between 15,000 and 20,000 people are killed or maimed by mines each year--most civilians and most in countries now at peace--according to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), an independent umbrella organization. Landmines are especially heinous weapons of war, the group says, because they are indiscriminate--unable to distinguish between soldiers, civilians, peacekeepers, aid workers, or others--and inhumane--designed to maim rather than kill but frequently killing nonetheless. They also deprive people of land and infrastructure in some of the poorest countries in the world, hamper reconstruction and the delivery of aid, deprive communities and families of breadwinners, and kill livestock and wild animals, according to the group. ICBL released a report last week suggesting that despite the fact that "immense challenges" remained to be dealt with, the worldwide use of landmines and the number of related casualties were going down. Last month, in a report on landmines, the group, however, suggested that some positive changes must still be forthcoming. "Although we are making great strides in our work to rid the world of this weapon, we need to do more," says ICBL leader Jody Williams, who won the Noble Peace Prize for her work in 1997. That's exactly what's on the minds of anti-mines activists like Bock and Goose, who believe that the world cannot achieve much unless the United States decides to reverse its policy. Many groups are now reaching out to U.S. lawmakers in an attempt to prevent the administration from pursuing its retrogressive policy on landmines. It appears they have succeeded in gaining support from some of them. "I believe that more can and must be done to stop this crisis," Senator Barack Obama, (D-IL) told Bock in a letter, while assuring his support in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "I will be working with my colleagues in Congress and with the Bush administration on this issue." Whether lawmakers like Obama will succeed in their efforts remains to be seen. -------- POLITICS -------- us politics Chiefs demoted in Pentagon succession line 12/28/2005 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-28-pentagon-succession_x.htm WASHINGTON — The three military service chiefs have been dropped in the Bush administration's doomsday line of Pentagon succession, pushed beneath three civilian undersecretaries in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's inner circle. A little-noticed holiday week executive order from President Bush moved the Pentagon's intelligence chief to the No. 3 spot in the succession hierarchy behind Rumsfeld. The second spot would be the deputy secretary of defense, but that position currently is vacant. The Army chief, which long held the No. 3 spot, was dropped to sixth. The changes, announced last week, are the second in six months and mirror the administration's new emphasis on intelligence gathering vs. combat in 21st century warfighting. Technically, the line of succession is assigned to specific positions, rather than the current individuals holding those jobs. But in its current incarnation, the doomsday plan moves to near the top three undersecretaries who are Rumsfeld loyalists and who previously worked for Vice President Dick Cheney when he was defense secretary. The changes were recommended, said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, because the three undersecretaries have "a broad knowledge and perspective of overall Defense Department operations." The service leaders are more focused on training, equipping and leading a particular military service, said Whitman. Thomas Donnelly, a defense expert with the American Enterprise Institute, said the changes make it easier for the administration to assert political control and could lead to more narrow-minded decisions. "It continues to devalue the services as institutions," said Donnelly, saying it will centralize power, and shift it away from the services, where there is generally more military expertise and interest. Under the new plan, Rumsfeld ally Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary for intelligence, moved up to the third spot while former Ambassador Eric Edelman, the policy undersecretary; and Kenneth Krieg, the undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, hold the fourth and fifth positions. The first to succeed Rumsfeld remains the job of the deputy secretary, a position currently vacant because the Senate has not confirmed Bush's nominee — Navy Secretary Gordon England. Senators have already approved Donald Winter to be England's replacement as Navy chief, and it is expected that Bush will eventually move England into the No. 2 Pentagon job without congressional approval through what is known as a recess appointment. Bush tinkered with the succession line last June, temporarily making England, as Navy secretary, the No. 2 in the succession hierarchy until the deputy's job was filled. Last week, Bush changed that, ordering that the acting deputy secretary — also England — would succeed Rumsfeld, until a deputy is appointed. The new succession order bumps the Navy secretary to near the bottom of the line of succession — eighth behind the deputy, the three Pentagon undersecretaries and the Army and Air Force secretaries. The Army secretary historically has been third in line, right behind the deputy secretary. As a precursor to the Defense Department, the Army was once considered the backbone of the nation's military. The Department of War was the country's military agency from 1789 to 1949, when it became the Department of Defense. At that time, the War Office was renamed as the Army, which became a component of the Defense Department. Since the terrorist attacks, intelligence gathering has taken center stage. Earlier this year, Bush named former ambassador John Negroponte as the country's first director of national intelligence, charged with overseeing the government's 15 highly competitive spy agencies. And in the spring of 2003, Rumsfeld installed Cambone — one of his closest aides — in the new job of intelligence undersecretary. -------- voting 10,000 March in Baghdad To Protest Alleged Electoral Fraud Wednesday, December 28th, 2005 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/28/1457231 In Iraq, more than 10,000 people marched through Baghdad Tuesday to protest alleged fraud in the country’s recent national elections. The marchers called for a national unity government to overcome country’s sectarian divisions, with chants of: "No Sunnis, no Shiites, yes for national unity." Early results indicate the religious Shiite coalition the United Iraqi Alliance has won a vast majority of the National Assembly. But leaders from both Sunni and smaller, secular Shiite parties say the vote was marred with fraud. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Nuclear's not the answer; combining hydrogen, wind and solar is Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 12/28/05 http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005512280374 I agree with the premise of the writer of the Dec. 16 letter "Hydrogen, nuclear best alternatives" that we are too dependent on foreign oil for our energy needs, but I propose an alternative to nuclear. Nuclear power has a serious downside: the long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste from the recovery process. These wastes are toxic to life, continue to generate low-level heat and remain radioactive for up to 10,000 years. If the cost of this radioactive storage (now borne by the government, not private utilities) is added to the cost of power generated by nuclear, we'd all be paying much more for electricity. And the cost of the storage of these wastes goes on for millennia. So far, we have stored these nuclear wastes for about 60 years, a short period of time compared to that required. What materials will stand up this long? And what state in the union wants a nuclear repository? Why foist this trash on future generations? Why tempt terrorists to steal it and wreak havoc? Now to the question of hydrogen: Hydrogen is abundant in water, but hydrogen as fuel must be produced from water by electrolysis — that is, the use of electrical power to produce hydrogen gas, which would then be burned as fuel. This electrolysis requires more electrical energy than is obtained from the subsequent combustion. From where will this electrical energy come? If a hydrogen fuel system has merit, then the hydrogen/wind/solar combination has even more merit. Although Mother Nature can't be compelled to generate energy in consonance with our daily peak demands and storing power in large banks of lead-acid batteries is impractical, by the combined system, the off-peak power would be used to produce hydrogen. Voila, no electricity storage. Without the use of wind and solar, hydrogen fuel would have to be produced from electrical power generated from the combustion of fossil fuels, and does nothing to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil. Solar and wind power are custom-made for the new hydrogen technology. The "ugliness per kilowatt" used by the writer regarding windmills and solar panels is a relative term. Have we banned ugly highway billboards? It's all conditioning — billboards seem to blend into the background. However, seeing the far-off masts of a wind farm would warm the souls of many citizens who realize that this technology is reducing our dependence on foreign oil. John Dabrowski COLTS NECK MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MONMOUTH COUNTY FRIENDS OF CLEARWATER ---- China Power Moves to Develop Oil Shale; Tapping Wind Also 28 December 2005 China Daily, Jilin Province http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/12/china_power_mov.html One of China’s top five power producers, China Power Investment Corp (CPIC), is planning to develop oil shale resources, in addition to expanding beyond coal-fired power generation into wind and nuclear. The State-owned electricity generator has inked a framework agreement with the local government in Jilin Province for joint development of oil shale resources. Jilin has 546 million tons of total proven oil shale reserves, and 317 million tons can be commercially exploitable, according to reports. Earlier this year, Royal Dutch Shell took a 61% stake in a new joint venture firm that will invest up to US$150 million in exploring and developing oil shale deposits in Jilin Province. The new joint venture company, the Jilin Shell Oil Shale Development Company Limited (Jilin Shell), will be 61% owned by Shell and 39% by Jilin Guangzheng Mineral Development Company Limited. (Earlier post.) CPIC will use oil produced from the Jilin reserves to generate electricity. The company has also been trying to tap renewable energy sources, cashing in on the new opportunities brought about by China’s first renewable energy law, which will take effect next year. The Beijing-based power generator signed a 3-billion yuan (US$369.9-million) agreement with Goldwind Science & Technology Co Ltd, China’s largest wind electric power generator manufacturer, for wind power plant construction projects in East and Northwest China. The accord covers a 200-MW and 100-MW projects, both scheduled to start construction next year, with commercial operation likely to start in 2008. China by the end of this year will have wind power generation facilities with a capacity of 1,000 MW. The country plans to increase the figure to 30,000 MW by 2020. The company has also reached agreements with the country’s two biggest nuclear reactor builders, China National Nuclear Corp and China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group, to start building four reactors in Liaoning and Shandong next year, a company official said. By the end of last year, State-owned CPIC had power generation facilities with a total capacity of 27,959 MW. Coal-fired plants accounted for 66.97 per cent, hydro plants 28.2 per cent and the remaining 4.83 per cent consisted of nuclear plants. nZEC. CPIC is also one of the groups cooperating in developing a near-zero emissions (nZEC) coal power plant with carbon capture and storage (CCS). This is a project analogous to the US’ FutureGen (earlier post). CPIC, along with China Huaneng Group, China Datang Corp, China Guodian Corp, Shenhua Group (China’ biggest coal producer), State Development and Investment Corp, and China National Coal Group formed a new venture, the Green Coal Power Company, with a budget of 5.8 billion yuan (US$716 million), to participate in the nZEC project, which is a joint initiative with the UK. Last week, Chief Scientific Adviser Sir David King formally signed the nZEC agreement in Beijing with Minister Xu Guangha, from the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology, which signals the start of the first phase of the project. Carbon Capture and Storage offers the opportunity to reduce emissions per unit of electricity by 85%–90%, according to Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). Successful development of near-Zero Emissions Coal plants and large-scale deployment of CCS in China could halve the country’s projected greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Some estimates forecast China surpassing the US as the top global CO2 emitter by 2015. The partners are outlining a phased approach. The first phase will be a 3-year feasibility study, examining the viability of different technology options for the capture of carbon dioxide emissions from power generation and the potential for geological storage in China, and leading towards a possible demonstration project starting up between 2010 and 2015. The UK is leading the first phase of the nZEC project, and supporting it with £3.5 million (US$6 million, Yuan 48.8 million) of funding (Defra £3m, DTI £0.5m). They hope to begin awarding contracts for the initial feasibility stage of the project in early 2006. ---- China Dumps Chemicals to try to Clean Toxic River REUTERS CHINA : December 28, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/34219/newsDate/28-Dec-2005/story.htm BEIJING - China is dumping chemicals into a southern river to try to neutralise a toxic spill and contain the second environmental disaster to hit the country in as many months, a local official and state media said on Friday. The cadmium-containing slick, which has cut tap water for tens of thousands of people downstream for five days, was flushed into the North River running across Guangdong province north to south from a Shaoguan zinc smelter last week. The government has already lowered dam gates at the Baishiyao hydropower plant near Yingde, 90 km (54 miles) downstream from Shaoguan, to try to stall and dilute the pollutants. Now it is to dump chemicals into the water, Yingde government spokesman Huang Zhensheng told Reuters by telephone. "With only 1,200 tonnes of the chemicals, toxicity can be reduced by 30 percent," the Southern Metropolis News quoted an expert as saying. Cadmium, a metallic element widely used in batteries, can cause liver and kidney damage and lead to bone diseases. Compounds containing cadmium are also carcinogenic. In China's northeast, the front of a slick of benzene compounds that poisoned drinking water for millions after a chemical plant blast last month has crossed the Russian border through the frozen Amur River. China apologised again to Russia on Thursday, while Russia's far east city of Khabarovsk readied alternative water supplies, though taps had not been turned off. "Analysis of the water showed that the benzene content does not exceed ... the maximum allowable concentration," RIA-Novosti news agency quoted an Emergencies Ministry official as saying. "As a result, the city authorities have decided not to turn off the Khabarovsk water supply." ---- China Sends Carbon to Russia to Fight Toxic Spill REUTERS CHINA : December 28, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/34218/newsDate/28-Dec-2005/story.htm BEIJING - China has sent Russia a second batch of activated carbon to help mitigate the effects of a toxic spill in a river flowing towards the border dividing the two countries, the official Xinhua news agency said. About 400 tonnes out of a total batch of 1,000 tonnes was delivered to Russia's far east city of Khabarovsk on Monday, Xinhua said in a late night report seen on Tuesday. China had already sent 150 tonnes of carbon, and the remainder will arrive soon, Xinhua said. An explosion at a chemical plant in China's northeast last month poisoned drinking water for millions and sent a frozen, poisonous slick of benzene heading slowly towards Russia. "The most concentrated part of the toxic slick has flowed past Khabarovsk," Xinhua said, adding that the concentration of benzene was within safety limits. China is also providing other technical assistance and has sent scientists to Russia to help deal with the slick, it added. Khabarovsk, a city of 580,000, had readied alternative water supplies while waiting for the slick to wind its way northeast of Russia's Amur river, reports from Russia said last week. Another toxic spill that sparked China's second major environmental scare of the winter should be safely diluted before the fouled river water reaches major cities in the south, state media said this week. -------- ACTIVISTS Protest of NASA Plutonium Launch Announced JANUARY 7 at Cape Canaveral From: "Global Network" Date: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:01pm JANUARY 7 PROTEST OF NEW HORIZONS PLUTONIUM LAUNCH AT CAPE CANAVERAL FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Bruce Gagnon (207) 729-0517 Maria Telesca (Florida) (321) 632-5977 The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space has announced a demonstration at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida on January 7 from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm. The protest will highlight opposition to NASA’s planned New Horizons launch that will carry 24 pounds of radioactive plutonium on board. NASA acknowledges in their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the New Horizons mission that there is a 1 in 300 chance of an accident resulting in release of the plutonium. In the event of such an accident the EIS states that the deadly plutonium could be carried by winds for a 60-mile radius throughout Central Florida. Clean-up costs for a plutonium accident would range from $241 million to $1.3 billion per square mile. NASA has big plans to expand the numbers of nuclear launches in the coming years. The DoE is now planning a $300 million expansion of their laboratory in Idaho just to make more plutonium for space missions. According to Global Network Coordinator Bruce Gagnon, “As people in the U.S. and around the world learn about NASA's plan to launch plutonium into space they become angry with the space agency. People say we don't want our tax dollars used to launch nuclear power into space. The public understands the threat to the planet and to our children's future. NASA is destroying their credibility with the very people who pay for these missions. We might have escaped Cassini, we might escape New Horizons, but with plans to put nuclear reactors on the moon to power bases there in the coming years NASA will be launching a host of these missions. One thing we have learned is that sooner or later, space technology can fail.” The protest is being co-sponsored by the Florida Coalition for Peace & Justice. For more information check the Global Network website at: http://www.space4peace.org - END - Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 652 Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 729-0517 globalnet@... http://www.space4peace.org http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Our blog)