NucNews - March 6, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR NPR Story on the Future of Nuclear Power Posted by Hemos on Monday March 06, 2006 http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/03/06/124230.shtml The Living on Earth show on NPR recently had a segment on the future of Nuclear Energy. The nearly hour long show is available as an mp3 and in transcript form. It talks about hot fusion, cold fusion, and Pebble Bed Reactors. It provides a well balanced and informative overview of progress towards their use for future nuclear power generation. Most interestingly, they talk with Dr. Pamela Boss and Dr. Stanislaw Szpak at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego. Dr. Szpak says of their cold fusion experiments: 'We have 100 percent reproducible results'." -------- accidents and safety US Nuclear Plant Leaks Fuel Health Concerns Story by Andrew Stern REUTERS USA: March 6, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35466/newsDate/6-Mar-2006/story.htm http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060307/hl_nm/nuclear_dc_3 CHICAGO (Reuters) - Years of radioactive waste water spills from Illinois nuclear power plants have fueled suspicions the industry covers up safety problems and sparked debate about the risks from exposure to low-level radiation. The recent, belated disclosures of leaks of the fission byproduct tritium from Exelon Corp.'s Braidwood, Dresden, and Byron twin-reactor nuclear plants -- one as long ago as 1996 -- triggered worries among neighbors about whether it was safe to drink their water, or even stay. "How'd you like to live next to that plant and every time you turn on the tap to take a drink you have to think about whether it's safe?" asked Joe Cosgrove, the head of parks in Godley, Illinois, a town adjacent to Braidwood. Cosgrove and some scientists and anti-nuclear activists who monitor health issues related to nuclear power say the delay in reporting the spills is indicative of industry and regulatory obfuscation bordering on cover-up. "We don't know what else has been leaked from that site. When they close ranks, you can't believe them," Cosgrove said, referring to the plant owner and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees safety at the nation's 103 commercial reactors, including 11 in Illinois. Cosgrove recalled a 2002 spill of diesel fuel that was initially mischaracterized by Braidwood's operators as run-off from a parking lot. When information about the tritium spills arose as part of the town's since-dropped lawsuit over the fuel, Exelon asked the court to bar any questions about it. A local doctor and his wife, Joseph and Cynthia Sauer, whose daughter contracted brain cancer when they lived near the Dresden plant, have collected data about heightened rates of cancer and birth defects near the Illinois plants in the period after the spills began. They say they were brushed off by the NRC. CONCLUSIVE INVESTIGATION "I don't say that people don't have concerns, but any suggestion that we are in cahoots with the industry to suppress (information) is baseless," NRC spokesman Jan Strasma said. The industry and the NRC say existing medical research shows people living near nuclear plants are safe and limits on discharges of radioactive liquids and gases are adequate. But some scientists and at least one congressman want a conclusive investigation of the health risks. They say that while tritium is like water, if ingested some of it may remain in the body where it can damage cells, leading to cancers, birth defects and miscarriages. U.S. Rep. Edward Markey (news, bio, voting record) has been unable to secure government funding for a health study on people living near nuclear plants, and the Massachusetts Democrat says he opposes U.S. President George W. Bush's prescription to build a new generation of nuclear reactors to lessen reliance on fossil fuels until more is known. "The president's plan is misguided. It presents health risks, creates additional nuclear waste that we have no long-term solution for, creates additional terrorist targets that we do not adequately defend, and costs an enormous amount of money. (Bush's) phrase 'clean, safe nuclear power' is oxymoronic," he said. IS IT SAFE? Exelon and the NRC say a 1998 spill of 3 million gallons of water contaminated with tritium -- a form of hydrogen that becomes radioactive water when it contacts air -- did contaminate ground water that breached the Braidwood plant boundary. But the radioactivity had not risen above federal limits where people live or have their drinking water wells. At Dresden, the 276,000-gallon (1 million-liter) tritiated water leak is still on-site, and the spill at Byron was found inside concrete vaults along an effluent pipe. The plants are all within 100 miles of Chicago in northern Illinois, which has the largest nuclear capacity of any U.S. state, about equal to Great Britain's. The spilled tritium was destined to be discharged as effluent in rivers anyway, authorities said, and they were not explicitly required to notify the public about it -- a reporting loophole Illinois congressmen want closed. "It's not like people are going to start dropping like flies from this level of radiation," said Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. "What I am alarmed by is the number of years it has taken, and how lax the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been, and how lax the corporation has been in informing the community fully" about the spills, he said. -------- britain Executive urged to stand by policy Mon 6 Mar 2006 Scotsman http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=341022006 The Scottish Executive has been urged to stick to its non-nuclear energy policy by an influential government advisory group. A report by the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) in Scotland concluded there was no justification for bringing forward a new nuclear power regime at the moment. This supports Scottish Executive policy, although the recent Scottish Labour conference in Aviemore backed a resolution for the renewal or replacement of nuclear power stations. It comes as a new survey claimed the majority of Scots remain opposed to new nuclear power stations being built north of the border. Scottish Commissioner of the SDC Hugh Raven said: "Our report proves how right Scotland is to fight for its 'no nuclear' policy. We have thoroughly investigated nuclear power over the last year, but have found that any potential benefits are outweighed by substantial disadvantages. "With our amazing renewable resources - combined with some serious political willpower - Scotland could become a true world leader in clean, sustainable energy." First Minister Jack McConnell has previously stated his opposition to a new nuclear power programme until the issue of dealing with waste is resolved and he has repeated that stance. The SDC report was prepared in response to the UK Government's energy review and examines the pros and cons of nuclear power, based on eight new research papers. It accepts that nuclear is a low-carbon technology, with an impressive safety record in the UK. Nuclear could also generate large quantities of electricity, contribute to stabilising carbon dioxide emissions and add to the diversity of the UK's energy supply. However, the report adds there is still no long-term solution to the issue of nuclear waste which will "guarantee safety". The cost of a new generation of nuclear power plants is also unclear, and they would lock the UK into a centralised distribution system for the next 50 years. The report also raises the issue of international security, pointing out that if the UK brings forward a new nuclear power programme, then legally it cannot deny other countries the same technology under the terms of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change. A combination of a low-carbon innovation strategy and an aggressive expansion of energy efficiency and renewables is seen by the SDC report as one way that the UK could meet its energy requirements without nuclear power. ---- Is nuclear the answer? Nuclear power is not the answer to tackling climate change or security of supply, according to the Sustainable Development Commission. March 6, 2006 Sustainable Development Commission (UK) http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html In response to the Government’s current Energy Review, the SDC nuclear report draws together the most comprehensive evidence base available, to find that there is no justification for bringing forward a new nuclear power programme at present. The report, Nuclear power in a low carbon economy, has been agreed by all 16 SDC commissioners. "the most thorough, hard-hitting and detailed case against the British nuclear option" - Michael McCarthy, Independent Based on eight new research papers, the SDC report gives a balanced examination of the pros and cons of nuclear power. Its research recognizes that nuclear is a low carbon technology, with an impressive safety record in the UK. Nuclear could generate large quantities of electricity, contribute to stabilising CO2 emissions and add to the diversity of the UK’s energy supply. However, the research establishes that even if the UK’s existing nuclear capacity was doubled, it would only give an 8% cut on CO2 emissions by 2035 (and nothing before 2010). This must be set against the risks. The report identifies five major disadvantages to nuclear power: 1. Long-term waste – no long term solutions are yet available, let alone acceptable to the general public; it is impossible to guarantee safety over the long-term disposal of waste. 2. Cost – the economics of nuclear new-build are highly uncertain. There is little, if any, justification for public subsidy, but if estimated costs escalate, there’s a clear risk that the taxpayer will be have to pick up the tab. 3. Inflexibility – nuclear would lock the UK into a centralised distribution system for the next 50 years, at exactly the time when opportunities for microgeneration and local distribution network are stronger than ever. 4. Undermining energy efficiency – a new nuclear programme would give out the wrong signal to consumers and businesses, implying that a major technological fix is all that’s required, weakening the urgent action needed on energy efficiency. 5. International security – if the UK brings forward a new nuclear power programme, we cannot deny other countries the same technology*. With lower safety standards, they run higher risks of accidents, radiation exposure, proliferation and terrorist attacks. On balance, the SDC finds that these problems outweigh the advantages of nuclear. However, the SDC does not rule out further research into new nuclear technologies and pursuing answers to the waste problem, as future technological developments may justify a re-examination of the issue. *Under the terms of the Framework Convention on Climate Change ---- British Govt advisors say nuclear not the option Monday, 06 Mar 2006 12:47 UK Politics http://www.politics.co.uk/domestic-policy/govt-advisors-say-nuclear-not-option-$17061140.htm Nuclear power is not the answer to tackling climate change or problems of energy supply, the government's independent advisors have warned. The sustainable development commission (SDC) has today published its response to the government's energy review, and warns the risks of nuclear power are still too great. It argues that Britain's needs can be met by developing new low-carbon technologies and an "aggressive" expansion of energy efficiency and renewables. "There’s little point in denying that nuclear power has benefits, but in our view, these are outweighed by serious disadvantages," said chairman Jonathon Porritt. "The government is going to have to stop looking for an easy fix to our climate change and energy crises – there simply isn’t one." Ministers have refused to pre-judge the outcome of the review, but have similarly refused to rule out replacing Britain's ageing nuclear power stations – which currently provide about one fifth of the country's energy - with new plants in the future. Tony Blair has called for a "serious debate" on the issue, but this has been widely seen as tacit support for building new stations, in tandem with the increased use of renewables such as solar and wind power. Today's report has therefore been welcomed by environmental campaigners, particular as it comes on the day a new poll shows the majority of people are against nuclear power. An ICM poll for BBC Scotland finds 51 per cent of Scots are opposed to new plants, compared to just 33 per cent who are in favour. However, this support increases to 54 per cent if such a move stopped Britain's reliance on overseas energy supplies. Asked what would be their preferred source of energy, 52 per cent said renewables, compared to 21 per cent for gas fired power stations, 15 per cent for nuclear power and six per cent for coal fired power. It reveals there are still major concerns about what to do with nuclear waste, and today's SDC report confirms this as one of nuclear's main problems, saying it is currently "impossible" to guarantee safety over the long-term disposal of waste. In addition, it notes the uncertainty surrounding costs of building new nuclear power stations and says such a move could send out the wrong message to consumers that new technology, and not a change in behaviour, was all that was required. The commission also expresses concern that an increase in the use of nuclear power in Britain would make it harder for the government to deny other countries the same technology - which could lead to higher risks of accidents. Shadow trade and industry secretary Alan Duncan called on ministers to take these concerns seriously, but added: "This report puts a spanner in the works for the government, who everybody believes has already made up its mind in favour of nuclear." -------- india India Deal Makes US a Nuclear Proliferator by Ranjit Devraj (Inter Press Service) March 6, 2006 http://www.antiwar.com/ips/devraj.php?articleid=8664 NEW DELHI - Campaigners for a nuclear-free South Asia are aghast at the potential nightmare that lies ahead following the nuclear technology and fuel deal announced here this week by visiting United States President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. "This deal may have further complicated an already difficult situation in South Asia which has two rival self-declared nuclear weapon states," said N.D. Jayaprakash, lead campaigner for the Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament (MIND), which counts among its ranks well-known scientists and intellectuals. "What is sad is that nowhere in all this did the idea that nuclear weapons are not safe in anybody's hands come up, and now, far from the disarmament debate, the clamor by other countries that they too be allowed to possess nuclear weapons has grown louder," he added. Pakistan, where Bush was rounding off his four-day South Asian tour on Saturday, was first off the block demanding a civilian nuclear technology deal similar to the one Washington signed with its regional rival on the grounds that it was short on fossil fuel. But, at a televised press conference in Islamabad, Bush ruled out any such deal with Pakistan. "We discussed the civilian nuclear program and I explained to him [Musharraf] that Pakistan and India are different countries with different needs and different histories," Bush said. "What is happening is that, with this deal, the U.S. has itself become the biggest proliferator of nuclear technology," Prof. Anuradha Chinoy, disarmament specialist at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), told IPS in an interview. "The only difference is that what the U.S. is practicing is selective proliferation." Chinoy said the deal went against the ideal of universal disarmament and would only make aspirant countries, denied entry into the select nuclear club, even more dangerous and desperate, as could be seen from the examples of Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. Iran has already accused the U.S. and India of double standards. As its case moves toward a likely referral to the UN Security Council, Iran will certainly raise the "double standards" pitch. Worst of all, said Chinoy, the "U.S. and India are now partners in violating international law by not involving the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] and the 45-country Nuclear Suppliers Group [NSG] before agreeing to transfer nuclear fuel and technology." Both the IAEA and the NSG are United Nations bodies. Indian newspapers, however, have been hailing the deal as a triumph for its negotiators' skills. They succeeded in keeping the country's demonstrated capacity to make nuclear weapons away from international inspections while gaining access to advanced reactors and technology for its civilian program. On top of that, India has all along refused to be signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) on the grounds that it was discriminatory. It carried out nuclear tests in 1974, attracting international sanctions, but defiantly went on to declare itself a nuclear weapons state in 1998 through a second round of tests. Following Thursday's deal, Singh told a press conference that under the Indo-U.S. pact the NSG and the IAEA would be made to formulate India-specific safeguards. Under existing rules, by contrast, the NSG cannot supply "dual-use" nuclear technology to India since it does not accept full-scope IAEA safeguards on nuclear facilities. So far, though, the agreement has received praise from IAEA director general Mohamed El Baradei, who has described it as "timely for ongoing efforts to consolidate the nonproliferation regime, combat nuclear terrorism, and strengthen nuclear safety." India has been allowed to classify eight of its existing 22 reactors as military and keep them away from IAEA inspectors and also decide whether any future reactor it builds ought to be classified as civilian or military. Most importantly, India has been able to keep its entire fast-breeder reactor program in the military list. Fast breeders use fission caused by fast neutrons and burn highly concentrated or enriched fuel, and, theoretically, they generate more fissile material than they consume. And the deal has no caps on fissile material, including weapons-grade plutonium. Even before Bush landed in India on Wednesday, Singh pledged in parliament that the fast breeder program, a pet project of India's secretive Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), would not be compromised in any way. "It is possible that DAE officials want to have the option of producing nuclear fuel for weapons in these unsafeguarded reactors," said M.V. Ramana, a well-known physicist at the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, located in the southern Indian city of Bangalore. Another possible reason for the fierce resistance put up by DAE, through interviews fed to the media by its chief Anil Kakodkar, is that the fast breeder sites also house facilities for the nuclear reactor that India is developing for its submarines. "Indian authorities probably don't want IAEA inspectors lurking around there," Ramana told IPS. ---- US insists India nuclear deal will not spark arms race By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent Mon Mar 6, 2006 (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060306/pl_nm/nuclear_india_usa_dc_1 WASHINGTON -The Bush administration, launching a campaign to sell its civilian nuclear accord with India to the U.S. Congress, on Monday insisted the deal advances U.S. interests and would not spawn an Asian arms race. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, the top U.S. negotiator, also expressed confidence that India will focus most of its future nuclear growth on civilian energy development, not weapons-building, and said critics who suggested otherwise paint an unrealistic "doomsday scenario." "We are having trouble understanding the argument that somehow this deal makes it more likely that India is going to engage in an arms build up. That's not at all the sense that we have from the Indian government," he told the conservative Heritage Foundation. In New Delhi last week, President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced an unprecedented deal that would end a decades-old ban on U.S. civilian nuclear technology sales to India and open the door for other countries to make similar deals. U.S. critics have accused Bush of selling out weapons non-proliferation goals in favor of the accord, which India considers crucial to a new relationship with Washington. But Burns said "this doomsday scenario that's been put together by some critics, I think, does not meet the reality of the current situation of the Indian government and its people and their future economic and energy needs." As for South Asian neighbors nuclear rivals India and Pakistan, "we don't foresee an arms race between these two countries," whose relations have improved in recent years, Burns said. Although politically weakened by domestic and overseas crises, Bush has the upper hand as he attempts to persuade the U.S. Congress and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group to approve the agreement, in large part because there is broad support for stronger U.S.-India ties. Burns met lawmakers on Capitol Hill to explain Bush's position and leading senators and congressmen have been invited to discuss the issue at the White House on Tuesday. Other public appearances by top officials are planned and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has launched a multi-million lobbying effort for the agreement. Defending the deal, Burns noted India has agreed to subject 14 of 22 existing civilian nuclear reactors to international inspections, as well as all future civilian reactors. As in the case of the five major nuclear powers -- the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain -- India will not open its weapons-related nuclear plants to inspections. Burns argued that because India plans its nuclear expansion in civilian energy more than in military area, the number of facilities subject to monitoring would increase over time. But Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association, a critic of the deal, noted that Indian officials themselves have said they would not accept safeguards on the experimental fast-breeder reactor program and said this raised questions about Burns' assurances. "It's a meaningless concession that the U.S. can't hold the Indians to. This is a figleaf for having caved into India's position on breeder reactors" and Congress will have to correct it, Kimball said. ---- India, Australia to sign defense pact By UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL Published March 6, 2006 http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20060306-104114-2783r NEW DELHI -- India and Australia will sign a defense pact during Prime Minister John Howard's four-day visit. The Hindu newspaper said Monday that in addition to defense, there would be agreements on customs cooperation, trade and economic framework, biotechnology and a letter of intent on the India-Australia Strategic Fund. Howard held bilateral talks with Indian President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Monday on a range of issues. He will visit India's business hub, Bombay, and the southern city of Chennai during his visit, and will meet Sonia Gandhi, the chairperson of the ruling United Progressive Alliance. "India is an increasingly influential country whose interests converge with Australia. We work constructively on key international issues," Howard said. Before leaving for India, Howard ruled out the signing of an agreement for the supply of nuclear energy to India during his visit. "We are certainly not going to change our policy just because Indians and Americans have reached an agreement," Howard said. India has expressed its willingness to buy uranium from Australia. Canberra, however, said uranium exports were not possible until India becomes a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Indian Commerce Minister Kamal Nath and opposition leader Lal Kishan Advani also held discussions with Howard. The Australian premier, along with his delegation, also held business talks with a number of Indian businessmen. They agreed to increase trade between the two countries and to explore new areas of cooperation. ---- PM acknowledges importance of uranium for India By Catherine McGrath and wires Monday, March 6, 2006 Australia Broadcasting http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1585366.htm The Prime Minister John Howard has told a business audience in India he is keen to hear the Indian perspective on the nuclear deal signed last week between India and the United States. Yesterday Mr Howard indicated he was open to a change in policy to allow Australia to export uranium to India, if safeguards could be ensured. Mr Howard says there is no current intention to change the policy which stops Australia selling uranium to countries that are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but today he said he has not ruled out reversing Australia's position down the track. In a speech to Indian business leaders Mr Howard acknowledged the importance of the nuclear energy issue to India. "Energy of course plays a critical role in our economic relationship and I know in your minds will be the agreement signed between the United States and India, only three days ago regarding the nuclear industry," he said. "This will be an issue to be discussed between myself and the Indian Prime Minister later today." Mr Howard termed the India-US nuclear pact as a positive development and said Australia had a very positive attitude towards New Delhi. "I welcome the fact that for the first time a lot of India's nuclear capacity is going to be subjected to international inspections, that's certainly a big step forward," he said. Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer says extremely compelling arguments would be needed to justify any change in Australia's uranium export policy. Mr Downer has told Lateline the policy has served Australia well. "The problem is if you start to make exceptions for India then it raises questions of course about Pakistan and it raises questions about Israel, they're the three non-signatories," he said. "Certainly at the moment we don't have any intention of changing the policy." Australia has almost half of the world's known uranium resources. ---- How many Nuclear Warheads does India Need? Gurmeet Kanwal Senior Fellow, Observer Research Foundation 6 March 2006 http://www.ipcs.org/whatsNewArticle1.jsp?action=showView&kValue=1968&status=article&mod=b One of the contentious issues that had threatened to derail the nuclear cooperation agreement signed by India and the United Sates in July 2005 is over the number of nuclear warheads that India needs for credible minimum deterrence. While the estimates put forward by Indian analysts range from one to two dozen 'survivable' warheads at the lower end of the spectrum to over 400 warheads at the upper end, these are mainly based on gut judgments and not on dispassionate cold logic. Nuclear weapons are political and not of "warfighting". Their sole purpose is to deter the use and the threat of use of nuclear weapons. A nation's nuclear force structure depends on its nuclear doctrine and deterrence philosophy. These are essentially based on its civilisational values, its national security strategy and its assessment of how much would be enough to deter its adversaries. The number of nuclear warheads that a nation must stockpile depends on the availability and quality of weapons-grade fissile material, its mastery of nuclear weapons design technology, the accuracy and reliability of its delivery systems, the fiscal constraints that govern its defence budget, the present and future air and missile defence capability of its adversaries, and their ability to absorb retaliatory nuclear strikes. If deterrence fails, in keeping with its nuclear doctrine, India will have to absorb a nuclear strike before retaliating against the adversary's major cities and industrial centers. India's targeting philosophy is based on a 'counter value' (as against 'counter force') strategy of massive punitive retaliation to inflict unacceptable damage to the adversary's major population and industrial centres. Hence, India's nuclear forces should be so structured that the warheads and their delivery systems are able to survive a first strike in sufficient numbers to be able to inflict the required amount of punishment on selected targets in a retaliatory strike. The survivability of India's nuclear arsenal can be ensured by redundancy in numbers, through wide dispersion of nuclear warheads and delivery systems over Peninsular India, by having rail- and road-mobile missiles in addition to air-delivered warheads and by investing in a limited number of difficult-to-detect nuclear powered submarines (SSBNs) armed with submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). Only SSBNs provide true retaliatory capability. A retaliatory strike capability to destroy eight to 10 major population and industrial centres would be adequate to meet the requirements of deterrence. For 10 counter value targets to be destroyed in the adversary country, a total of 40 nuclear warheads, at the scale of four 20 to 40 Kiloton warheads per target, would be adequate to cause unacceptable damage in a retaliatory nuclear strike if the probable error (CEP) of the Agni IRBM delivery systems is taken to be 1,000 metres and a destruction assurance level of 0.7 (about 70 percent) is considered acceptable. If the efficiency or overall reliability of India's nuclear delivery system is taken to be between 0.5 and 0.6 (50 to 60 per cent), a reasonable assumption for a modern nuclear force, then 75 warheads must actually be launched for about 40 to 45 warheads to explode successfully over their targets as some missiles may fail to take off, some may veer off course, some may be intercepted and some warheads may either fail to explode or may explode in a sub-optimal manner. Hence, a minimum of 75 warheads and, of course, their delivery systems must survive the enemy's first strike on Indian targets and be available for retaliation. Despite the best possible concealment and dispersion measures approximately 50 per cent of the nuclear warheads and delivery systems may be destroyed in a first strike by the adversary. It would, therefore, be reasonable to plan a warhead stocking level of at least twice the number of warheads that are actually required to be launched, that is, 150 warheads. The last aspect to be catered for is a prudent level of reserves for larger than anticipated damage to own nuclear forces in a first strike and for unforeseen eventualities. Escalation control and war termination strategies would also be dependent on the ability to launch counter-recovery strikes and some fresh strikes. One-third the required number of warheads should be adequate as reserves. Hence, the total requirement works out to 200 nuclear warheads for a minimum deterrence doctrine with a no first use strategy if 10 major population and industrial centres are to be attacked in a retaliatory strike to achieve a 70 to 80 per cent assurance level of destruction. The safeguard restrictions that India has voluntarily accepted under the July 18th agreement with the US and the number of nuclear reactors that it has decided to keep in the military list, will ensure that India will have adequate fissile material to manufacture 200 plus nuclear warheads. Treaty obligations will not compromise India's sovereign right to take all steps necessary to assemble a larger number of warheads if national security considerations so demand in future. It is time to let this issue rest and move on to concentrating on the civilian aspects of enhancing the contribution of nuclear power to India's energy basket. The author can be contacted at: gurmeetkanwal@gmail.com -------- iran Teheran park 'cleansed' of traces from nuclear site By Con Coughlin, Defence and Security Editor (Filed: 06/03/2006) UK Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/06/wiran06.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/06/ixworld.html Iran's Revolutionary Guards have taken the extraordinary step of cutting down thousands of trees in Teheran to prevent United Nations inspectors from finding traces of enriched uranium from a top-secret nuclear plant. News of last month's cleansing operation comes as the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-member board meets in Vienna today to decide whether Iran should be reported to the United Nations Security Council for failing to comply with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Dr Mohamed ElBaradei: scathing report on Iran According to western intelligence sources, more than 7,000 trees which may have contained incriminating nuclear traces have been lost in a popular parkland area in the city near the Lavizan atomic research centre. At today's meeting Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA head, is expected to deliver a scathing report on Iran's nuclear programme, which Teheran insists is aimed solely at developing an indigenous nuclear power industry. But Dr ElBaradei will inform the board that he is not in a position to assert that the nuclear programme is "entirely peaceful", and blames Teheran for its lack of "transparency" over its nuclear programme. His report will add to the suspicions of western governments that Iran has a clandestine programme to develop nuclear weapons. Iran threatened to begin large-scale uranium enrichment if the IAEA formally refers it the Security Council. The Islamic republic's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani told a press conference: "Research and development is in our national interest and Iran will not go back on that. If they (America and allies) want to use force, we will pursue our own path. One of the IAEA's key concerns has been the government's conduct over the Lavizan complex. The IAEA only became aware of its existence after Iranian exiles provided details of its location at a military base in Teheran in 2003. Iran was accused of using the facility to conduct research into nuclear enrichment, and Israeli military officials claimed that the prototypes of four nuclear warheads were also stored at the site. Western intelligence officials believe the site was deliberately situated in a major population area to make it more difficult for the United States and Israel, which are determined to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons, from carrying out pre-emptive air strikes. The Iranians responded to the exiles' disclosure by razing the complex in 2004 before IAEA inspectors could conduct a full investigation. To ensure that no incriminating traces of nuclear activity were found, they even ploughed the site and removed six inches of topsoil. Despite these efforts, IAEA inspectors still found traces of enriched uranium in soil collected from the site. Intelligence officials concluded that the traces came from nuclear equipment acquired from Dr A Q Khan, the "father" of Pakistan's nuclear bomb. Recent tests in the area by scientists working for the Atomic Energy Agency of Iran (AEOI) showed unusually high concentrations of uranium contamination in the leaves and branches of trees surrounding the site. The scientists unanimously recommended that preparations should be made in case IAEA inspectors decided to conduct further visits. The order to cut down the trees was given by Mohamed Baker Khalibaf, the mayor of Teheran, who is close to President Mahmoud Ahmadnijehad. The official explanation for the destruction of the trees was to create a national park. "The destruction of the trees is yet another example of the measures the Iranians are prepared to take to conceal the true nature of the nuclear programme," said a senior western official. "But after three years of deliberately trying to conceal their activities from the IAEA, none of the member states is prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt." ---- Iran N-bomb 'design' to be shown From correspondents in New York 06 mar 2006 Australia Herald Sun http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18363014%255E1702,00.html DIAGRAMS from an Iranian computer believed to depict an atomic bomb will be key to US arguments at the UN Security Council to take action on Iran's nuclear program, Time magazine reports. The computer, purportedly stolen from an Iranian nuclear engineer and obtained by the CIA in 2004, contained documents and diagrams, including a presentation in Farsi "with catchy graphics", that the US believed demonstrated Tehran's intention to build nuclear weapons, Time said. The magazine said US officials would show the documents and diagrams to the Security Council to bolster their case for the need for UN action against Tehran, which claims its nuclear work is only for peaceful purposes. The council could meet in the days after tomorrow's meeting in Vienna of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board, the UN nuclear watchdog. The meeting is expected to clear the way for possible UN Security Council action. In its issue being released tomorrow, Time cited a Western diplomat who said the computer's diagrams showed a hollow metallic sphere about 60cm in diameter and weighing about 200kg. "Because of the size and weight and the power source going into it and height-of-burst requirements," the diplomat said, experts concluded the design "is only intended to contain a nuclear weapon". "There's no other munition which would work." One diagram shows an outer shell festooned with explosive charges, which would explode toward the core, the magazine said. The design is similar to Fat Man, the atomic bomb the US dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, in August 1945 ending World War II. Data from the Iranian computer was already used last year by Washington to try to convince IAEA leaders that Iran was violating its rules and attempting to secretly build nuclear weapons. However, Time called the computer data "circumstantial" and the US officials admit it is "no smoking gun" proving Iran is building a nuclear bomb. ---- US envoy hints at strike to stop Iran Julian Borger Washington Monday March 6, 2006 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1724473,00.html The US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, has told British MPs that military action could bring Iran's nuclear programme to a halt if all diplomatic efforts fail. The warning came ahead of a meeting today of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which will forward a report on Iran's nuclear activities to the UN security council. The council will have to decide whether to impose sanctions, an issue that could split the international community as policy towards Iraq did before the invasion. Yesterday the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said: "Nobody has said that we have to rush immediately to sanctions of some kind." However the parliamentary foreign affairs committee, visiting Washington last week, encountered sharply different views within the Bush administration. The most hawkish came from Mr Bolton. According to Eric Illsley, a Labour committee member, the envoy told the MPs: "They must know everything is on the table and they must understand what that means. We can hit different points along the line. You only have to take out one part of their nuclear operation to take the whole thing down." It is unusual for an administration official to go into detail about possible military action against Iran. To produce significant amounts of enriched uranium, Iran would have to set up a self-sustaining cycle of processes. Mr Bolton appeared to be suggesting that cycle could be hit at its most vulnerable point. The CIA appears to be the most sceptical about a military solution and shares the state department's position, say British MPs, in suggesting gradually stepping up pressure on the Iranians. The Pentagon position was described, by the committee chairman, Mike Gapes, as throwing a demand for a militarily enforced embargo into the security council "like a hand grenade - and see what happens". Yesterday Mr Bolton reiterated his hardline stance. In a speech to the annual convention of the American-Israel public affairs committee, the leading pro-Israel US lobbyists, he said: "The longer we wait to confront the threat Iran poses, the harder and more intractable it will become to solve ... we must be prepared to rely on comprehensive solutions and use all the tools at our disposal to stop the threat that the Iranian regime poses." The IAEA referred Iran to the security council on February 4, but a month's grace was left for diplomatic initiatives. By yesterday, those appeared exhausted. A meeting of European and Iranian negotiators broke down on Friday over Tehran's insistence that even if Russia was allowed to enrich Iran's uranium, Iran would enrich small amounts for research. Iran says that it needs enrichment for electricity. According to Time magazine, the US plans to present the security council with evidence that Iran is designing a crude nuclear bomb, like the one dropped on Nagasaki in 1945. The evidence will be in the form of blueprints that the US said were found on a laptop belonging to an Iranian nuclear engineer, and obtained by the CIA in 2004. However, any such presentation will bring back memories of a similar briefing in February 2003 in which Colin Powell, then US secretary of state, laid out evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which proved not to exist. While the US and Britain keep a united front over Iraq in the UN security council, there are clear differences over Iran. Britain has ruled out a military option if diplomatic pressure fails. The US has not. There is no serious consideration of large-scale use of ground forces, but there are disagreements in the administration over whether air strikes and small-scale special forces operations could be effective in halting or slowing down Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programme. Some believe Iran has secret facilities that are buried so deep underground as to be impenetrable. They argue that the US could never be certain whether or not it had destroyed Iran's "capability". ---- Russia Offering Deal Which Includes Iranian Enrichment by Staff Writers Vienna (AFP) Mar 06, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_Offering_Deal_Which_Includes_Iranian_Enrichment.html Russia is proposing a package that would allow Iran eventually to do small-scale uranium enrichment but not obtain the technology that can be used to make nuclear weapons, diplomats told AFP Monday. But one diplomat said the package is currently unacceptable to both the United States and European nations, which want Iran to give up uranium enrichment, and to Iran, since it would call for a full suspension of enrichment during talks, a diplomat said. An Iranian diplomat in Vienna said the Russians have not called for a short-term suspension of research activities. But Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, appeared to contradict that, saying the Moscow offer was subject to conditions, including "Iran's resumption of a suspension (of uranium enrichment)." "Of course the proposal to create a joint enterprise in Russia is on the table for negotiation," Lavrov said during a visit Monday to Ottowa, according to Interfax news agency. In Vienna, another diplomat said that if Europeans accepted Iranian research activities, Iran would be "ready to delay moving ahead on industrial enrichment". The Russian plan, which Lavrov was to discuss later Monday with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Washington, was said by the Vienna diplomats to involve: -- Iran suspending for a short time all enrichment activities, including small-scale research it began in February. -- Iran agreeing to ratify the Additional Protocol of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which allows for wider inspections by the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency. -- Iran agreeing to a long-term suspension of industrial-level enrichment activities and having uranium enriched instead in Russia, where the Islamic republic would not acquire the technology that is considered a "break-out capacity" for making atom bombs. -- Having the IAEA determine what would be a safe, non-proliferation level of small-scale enrichment -- that is, how many centrifuge machines could be used. Centrifuges arranged in series called cascades spin uranium gas to distill out uranium enriched with higher levels of the U-235 isotope. Nuclear power reactors normally use uranium enriched to 3-5 percent while bombs require uranium enriched to over 90 percent. Iran is already running a 10-centrifuge cascade at a facility in Natanz and has tested a 20-centrifuge cascade, neither of which could produce highly enriched uranium or even large amounts of low enriched uranium. The Russians are willing to have the Iranian run a pilot enrichment project of 164 centrifuges but the Iranians want to run 3,000 centrifuges, diplomats said. "The Iranians do not accept limiting themselves to 20 centrifuges," a diplomat said. "The Americans do not accept 164," the diplomat added, in comments confirmed by other diplomats, who all asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the issue. "Running 20 centrifuges would not allow the Iranians to master the technology. 164 is quite a difference," one diplomat said. A US State Department official told reporters in Vienna Monday that the United States would not accept Iran doing any enrichment at all. Industrial levels of enrichment involve thousands of centrifuges and, properly configured, they can make enough highly enriched uranium per year for many atom bombs. The Iranians want to install over 50,000 centrifuges in Natanz. Source: Agence France-Presse ---- No Uranium Enrichment Permissible For Iran Says Bolton by Staff Writers United Nations (AFP) Mar 06, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/No_Uranium_Enrichment_Permissible_For_Iran_Says_Bolton.html The United States on Monday restated its opposition to allowing Iran to proceed with small-level uranium enrichment as part of a compromise to resolve the standoff over Tehran's nuclear program. As the UN nuclear watchdog met in Vienna to consider the issue, Russia proposed a package that would allow Iran eventually to do small-scale uranium enrichment but not obtain the technology that can be used to make nuclear weapons, according to diplomats in the Viennese capital. "I'm not aware of this proposal but it's been a core element of our view and the view of the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany) and certainly of the Russian Federation that no enrichment in Iran is permissible," US ambassador to the UN John Bolton told reporters. "The reason for that is that even a small so-called research enrichment program could give Iran the possibility of mastering the technical deficiencies it's currently encountering in its program," he noted. "Once Iran has the scientific and technological capability to do even laboratory size enrichment, that knowledge could be replicated in industrial-size enrichment activities elsewhere, that's why we've felt very strongly that no enrichment inside Iran should be permitted, and that remains our position." Uranium enrichment is used to produce fuel for nuclear power reactors but, taken further, can also provide fuel for bomb-making. Bolton refused to comment on press reports that Washington would press the UN Security Council to give Iran a 30-day deadline to comply with IAEA demands to halt uranium enrichment and provide assurances it is not seeking a nuclear weapons capability. If Tehran does not comply with the council demands within 30 days, Washington will propose that it face "severe diplomatic pressures", the Washington Post reported Saturday, quoting anonymous US and European officials. "I'd rather not comment on exactly how we'll proceed, we're still engaged in consultations with others," Bolton said, noting that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov would visit Washington Tuesday. "We've got a number of ideas that we've shared with other governments and we'll be reaching a decision within a matter of days," the US envoy said. In Vienna, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Monday he hoped an agreement could be reached soon to avert punitive UN Security Council action. But speaking to a powerful Israel lobby group in Washington Sunday, Bolton warned Tehran that "if it continues down the path of international isolation there will be tangible and painful consequences." He said he world community should "use all tools at our disposal to stop the threat that the Iranian regime poses", although he stressed that the UN Security Council "will likely take a graduated approach to dealing with this issue." The IAEA board of governors had reported Iran to the Security Council on February 4 but left a month open for diplomacy until the 35-member council gets a report from ElBaradei. ---- Berlin worried as Iran nuclear row heats up By STEFAN NICOLA UPI Germany Correspondent 3/6/2006 http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060306-115804-7005r KEHL AM RHEIN, Germany, March 6 (UPI) -- As the United Nations nuclear watchdog met Monday in Vienna met to discuss Iran's controversial nuclear program, Germany said it is worried the ongoing row may escalate. "We have heard no new and promising Iranian proposal. The situation is serious," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said in an interview published in Monday's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper, referring to last week's failed eleventh-hour talks between all parties. Steinmeier's comments came as the International Atomic Energy Agency convened to discuss how to deal with the deadlocked crisis. Meanwhile, the leadership in Tehran stepped up its own rhetoric, indicating it may stop oil exports to the West. The Washington Post quoted Iran's top negotiator, Ali Larijani, as saying: "If we are referred to the (United Nations) Security Council, problems might occur for others as well as us." "We would not like to use our oil as a weapon. We would not like to make other countries suffer," he said. The West's position was further undermined by the new nuclear separation deal between the United States and India, according to an expert. "That clearly makes the discussion more difficult," said Erwin Haeckel, an Iran expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations. "Tehran will argue that the West itself circumvents the Non-Proliferation Treaty." He added that India, which sits on the IAEA's board of governors, more than likely had to assure its backing of the Western position in the Iran row -- especially when it comes to possible economic sanctions. India, along with China and Japan, is one of the heaviest importers of Iranian oil. The IAEA is expected to slow down talks in Vienna to allow for a diplomatic solution before it will issue its recommendations at the end of the week. Speaking to reporters in Vienna, the agency's director, Mohammed ElBaradei, said while the governor's meeting would start Monday, Iran will not top the agenda until Tuesday or Wednesday. The IAEA voted last month to report Iran to the Security Council after two-year long talks between Great Britain, France and Germany -- known as the European Union-3 -- broke down in January. A last-minute meeting between all parties last Friday also fell apart. Egyptian-born ElBaradei said the security of the entire Middle East was at stake. The IAEA's inspections had not unearthed any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons, he said, but added that there are still a number of "important uncertainties" that need to be clarified. "Unfortunately the picture is still hazy as to the scope and nature of Iran's nuclear program," said ElBaradei. Iran, under its international treaty obligations, can enrich uranium. However, the West fears that Tehran is using the process to secretly make a nuclear bomb. ElBaradei said Iran was presently running some 20 centrifuges, and added the Islamic Republic should stop uranium enrichment until an agreement was found. For its part, the West still aims for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. "We hope that Iran recognizes that a resolution of the negotiations is in its own vital interests," Steinmeier said. ---- Iran said to step up plans for Shahab missiles 06 Mar 2006 14:27:43 GMT Source: Reuters By Louis Charbonneau http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06200254.htm BERLIN, March 6 (Reuters) - As Iran pursues a nuclear programme the West fears is aimed at producing bombs, Tehran also appears to be stepping up development of missiles capable of carrying atomic warheads, diplomats citing intelligence say. According to an intelligence report given to Reuters by a non-U.S. diplomat, a covert Iranian programme run by people closely linked to Iran's military includes plans to arm its Shahab-3 missiles, which experts believe have a maximum range of around 2,000 km (1,240 miles), with nuclear warheads. The report, which could not be independently confirmed, surfaced as the United States and its allies seek to highlight the potential security dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. The report said it was code-named Project 111 and that the "aim is arming Shahab-3 missiles with nuclear warheads". An Iranian official, who asked not to be named, denied the charge. The assessment that Iran has nuclear ambitions for the Shahab-3 is shared by the European Union, Washington and Israel, said an EU diplomat who asked not to be named. Tehran says it only wants nuclear power stations, not bombs. After three years of inquiries, U.N. inspectors have been unable to verify that Tehran's nuclear programme is purely peaceful. An Iranian exile who has reported accurately on Tehran's nuclear programme in the past said Iran had significantly increased production of Shahab-3 missiles. The International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors met in Vienna on Monday to consider the latest IAEA report on Iran's nuclear programme. It will be sent to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions on Iran. Project 111 was first mentioned last month in a report by the Washington Post, which described it as "a nuclear research effort that includes work on missile development". The Post said U.S. officials believe it is the successor of Project 110, which they believe is the military arm of Iran's atomic programme. GERMANY WARNS COMPANIES German intelligence officials believe Iran has stepped up covert efforts to procure missile technology, said a German government official, who asked not to be named. The intelligence officials are sending "early-warning letters" to German firms, urging them to be alert for Iranian agents hunting for missile technology, he said. German authorities have detained several Germans and at least one foreigner as part of a series of investigations of suspected attempts to purchase missile and other arms technology in Germany on behalf of Iranian intelligence, the official said. Iran has repeatedly warned it would not hesitate to deploy the Shahab-3 missiles, which can reach Israel and U.S. military bases in the Gulf, if it comes under attack. Material recovered by U.S. intelligence from a stolen laptop computer also suggests Iranian missile experts have been trying to develop a missile re-entry vehicle capable of carrying a relatively small nuclear warhead, EU diplomats have said. But David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and head of a U.S.-based think-tank, cautioned that however credible, all this intelligence is based on assessments, not certainty. "I don't think any of the available intelligence represents a smoking gun," Albright said. His Institute for Science and International Security estimates that Iran could not produce a bomb before 2009. Alireza Jafarzadeh, an Iranian exile who heads a think-tank in Washington, told Reuters Tehran had sharply accelerated production of Shahab-3 missiles to around 90 a year from 15-20. Jafarzadeh, formerly a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI), listed by Washington as a terrorist organisation, revealed the existence of Iran's secret uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and other sites in August 2002. North Korea has also been key to Iran's missile development. Last month a German diplomat, citing his country's intelligence, confirmed a German newspaper report from December that said Iran had purchased 18 disassembled BM-25 mobile missiles with a range of around 2,500 km from North Korea. The NCRI said at a news conference in London on Monday that Iran was also working on developing so-called Ghadr missiles, with a range of up to 3,000 km. Unlike the Shahab, which is based on North Korean Nodong missile technology, the Ghadr missile is based neither on North Korean or Russian designs. No comment from Iran was immediately available. (Additional reporting by Gideon Long in London and Parisa Hafezi in Vienna) -------- israel Security heads split over response to Iran-Russia deal By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent and News Agencies 06/03/2006 http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/690452.html The defense establishment in Israel is divided over how the country should respond to the compromise proposal that Russia has presented concerning Iran's nuclear program. Time Magazine reported Monday that U.S. officials were preparing a new intelligence briefing for the UN Security Council based on diagrams believed to show components of a nuclear bomb found on a laptop belonging to an Iranian nuclear engineer. According to the report, the evidence, obtained by the CIA in 2004, will support the U.S. demand for sanctions on Iran, due to the country's intention to develop nuclear capabilities for military use. Thus far, Moscow and Tehran have been unable to agree on the proposal, and on Monday, the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors is due to meet in Vienna to decide whether to ask the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran. Nevertheless, the Russian plan - which calls for the two countries to enrich uranium jointly on Russian soil for delivery to Iran, and makes Russia responsible for ensuring that the enriched uranium is used only for civilian purposes - is not yet off the table. Olmert calls for imposing sanctions on Iran Hours before a crucial meeting of IAEA, Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called for imposing economic sanctions on Iran. "Iran is a threat to the modern world," he told an annual conference of pro-Israeli activists in Washington. Israel would use "all means" at its disposal to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons, he warned, but added "we cannot do it alone." Olmert addressed the conference via video link from Jerusalem late Sunday. From the start, Israel has been skeptical of the Russian proposal; in January, National Security Council chairman Giora Eiland went to Moscow to discuss it with the Russians. Israel's position, promoted by Mossad espionage agency chief Meir Dagan, was that Tehran's ostensible willingness to negotiate with Moscow over this plan was merely a ploy meant to stave off Security Council action. Recently, however, Eiland has changed his mind on the subject. His current view is that while any Iranian maneuver should be viewed with skepticism, that does not diminish the value of the Russian proposal. If the Russians impose sufficiently strict conditions and exercise stringent supervision over the Iranians, he now argues, Israel should support Moscow's proposal. This is partly because it already enjoys broad international backing, but also because it might delay Tehran from arriving at the "point of no return" in terms of the ability to make nuclear weapons. For the proposal to achieve this goal, Eiland acknowledges, it must have teeth. Among other things, Iran would have to agree once again to lock the doors of its uranium-enrichment facilities - something it has thus far refused to do. Just yesterday, Ali Larijani, Iranian's senior nuclear negotiator, said that Tehran would never agree to halt its research on enriching uranium. However, Eiland says, if it did agree to do so, this would be a positive development. But most of the defense establishment - including the Mossad, the Israel Defense Forces and the Atomic Energy Commission - have not yet come around to Eiland's way of thinking, even though they now attribute more importance to the Russian proposal than they formerly did. And meanwhile, Military Intelligence is currently sitting on the fence. At the minute, however, the dispute appears hypothetical, since Iran currently shows no signs of adopting the Russian proposal. At a press conference Sunday, Larijani said that the most Iran would agree to was a gradual timetable for beginning large-scale uranium enrichment, with complete freedom to conduct research in this field until large-scale enrichment began. He also threatened that Iran would immediately resume large-scale enrichment if the IAEA decides to ask the Security Council to impose sanctions. -------- japan KEPCO abandons plan for nuclear plant The Yomiuri Shimbun (Mar. 6, 2006) http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20060306TDY01003.htm Kansai Electric Power Co. will abandon a 30-year-long project to build a nuclear power plant in the former Kumihamacho, Kyoto Prefecture, now part of Kyotango, it was learned Saturday. KEPCO has decided to withdraw an application with the Kyotango municipal government to conduct preparatory environmental research, due to slow growth in power demand and residents' opposition to the project. The firm is to formally finalize the decision and inform the municipal government in a week. KEPCO first asked the town for permission to carry out environmental research in preparation for constructing the plant in 1975. At one stage, the town and its assembly expressed their intention to accept the assessment. In 1985, the town itself conducted a geological study for the power plant. However, the plan to build a plant was derailed by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear plant explosion, and other reasons. Kumihamacho became Kyotango in a municipal merger in 2004. Kyotango Mayor Yasushi Nakayama last month asked KEPCO to withdraw its application to do the research. In response, KEPCO concluded it would be difficult to proceed with the project in the face of opposition from both the municipality and residents. In addition, demand for electricity in the Kansai region has not grown in line with the firm's estimates in the 1970s, when it first came up with the project. As a result, the firm decided to drop the project was unlikely to affect power supplies. The latest decision reflected this assessment. This is the second nuclear power plant plan KEPCO has abandoned. It had planned to build a nuclear power plant in Suzu, Ishikawa Prefecture, jointly with Chubu Electric Power Co. and Hokuriku Electric Power Co. But in December 2003, it froze the project due to slow growth in power demand and eventually abandoned it completely. In the same month, Tohoku Electric Power Co. suspended a plan to build a nuclear power plant in then Makimachi, which is now part of Niigata, after it found it could not acquire the site. Since then, the firm has faced difficulties finding a new location for the project due to protests by residents, who are concerned about safety. The choice to locate the plant in Kumihamacho was a joint plan of KEPCO and the municipal government. The Makimachi project, however, is part of the central government's electric power development program, and is expected to be given the go-ahead in some form at another location. In light of the abandonment of the Kyotango plan, KEPCO is now expected to review its plans to renovate and extend its existing power plants in Mihamacho and Takahamacho in Fukui Prefecture, among others. -------- pakistan Bush Says No Civilian Nuclear Partnership with Pakistan ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, March 6, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-06-03.asp Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf welcomed U.S. President George W. Bush to Islamabad on Saturday and the leaders affirmed the long term, strategic partnership between their two countries, but it will not include nuclear cooperation. While the American President was confirmed a civilian nuclear agreement with India earlier in the week, he is not willing to write a parallel agreement with Pakistan. In a joint press conference Saturday, President Bush said that while a nuclear deal had been discussed, he did not feel Pakistan is ready for such a deal at this time. "We discussed a civilian nuclear program," Bush said, "and I explained that Pakistan and India are different countries with different needs and different histories. So, as we proceed forward, our strategy will take in effect those well-known differences." Pakistan currently has two nuclear power reactors, and began building a third with Chinese help at Chashma in Punjab province in January. President Bush repeatedly expressed his gratitude for Musharaf's assistance in fighting terrorists during this visit. But Pakistan was tagged as a nuclear proliferator in 2004 after Dr. A.Q. Khan, the chief architect of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, admitted to sharing nuclear technology with North Korea, Libya, and Iran. Pakistan has sought to calm international fears, saying its civilian nuclear plants are operated under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision. Pakistan also has a nuclear weapons and missile technology program. Its first nuclear weapons tests was conducted in 1998, more than 10 years after rival India built its first nuclear weapon. Neither Pakistan nor India has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In September, Pakistan urged the United States and other Western countries to help it develop civilian nuclear technology to meet its burgeoning energy needs. During their joint press conference, President Bush told reporters that U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman would visit shortly to work with the Pakistan government to develop clean coal and natural gas to help meet the country's energy needs. A proposed Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline ran into opposition from the United States last year, as concern over Iran's uranium enrichment program grew. President Bush said Saturday that he was fine with the pipeline. "We understand your need to get natural gas in the region, and that's fine," he said. "Our beef with Iran is not the pipeline," said President Bush, "our beef with Iran is the fact that they want to develop a nuclear weapon. And I believe a nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranians would be very dangerous for all of us. It would endanger world peace. So we're working very hard to convince the Iranians to get rid of their nuclear ambitions," he said. Pakistan and India now are negotiating with Iran on the gas price and project structure. The three nations will meet this month for the first time to finalize arrangements for the US$7 billion, 2,600 kilometer (1,600 mile) pipeline. The IAEA has referred the issue Iran's nuclear enrichment program to the UN Security Council, where it now awaits action. IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei is due to present his latest report on Iran's nuclear activities to the IAEA's Board of Governors today. As part of their newly declared strategic partnership Presidents Bush and Musharraf agreed to develop public and private collaboration on a broad range of energy sources. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice told reporters in a briefing that there had been discussion of biomass, and about the possibilities of using ethanol. "We talked about clean coal technology as another direction to go," she said. "There are a lot of technological ways to pursue the energy needs, but civil nuclear just isn't possible," Rice said. On other environmental issues, President Bush said the United States is "proud to help our Pakistani friends recover from the devastation of the earthquake" that struck October 8, 2005. The 7.6 magnitude quake killed 73,000 people, injured an equal number and left more than three million homeless to face the harsh Himalayan winter. President Bush renewed the U.S. pledge of one-half billion dollars for recovery and reconstruction. "It is staggering what the people of this country have been through. It is unbelievable how many people lost their lives, how many people have lost their homes. And we're proud to help. We're proud to help a great Pakistan military take the lead. We're proud to stand with the NGOs and those who deliver compassion as this country rebuilds," he said. President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush, accompanied by President Musharraf and First Lady Begum Sehba Musharraf, met with orphaned children, amputees and women survivors of the earthquake and expressed their sympathy and support. Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz was also present. President Bush said also that he supports the Pakistani President's vision of a reconstruction opportunity zone in remote areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. "This vision means that products manufactured in those zones will be eligible for duty-free entry into the United States. So we're working to create such zones," he said. The U.S.-Pakistan strategic partnership includes a new agreement to enhance Pakistan's institutional capacity in the area of the environment through exchange of experts and developing linkages and collaborative projects with relevant U.S. institutions. -------- treaties Selling uranium to India would degrade treaty: ex-diplomat Monday, March 6, 2006 Australia Broadcasting http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1584863.htm There is alarm the Prime Minister may be in the process of negotiating a deal to export uranium to India without insisting on it becoming a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Former diplomat and Sydney University Professor Richard Broinowski says any such deal would degrade the treaty and undercut the legitimacy of other uranium export agreements Australia has struck. "It's already a treaty of double standards but it's getting even worse and it sends the wrong kind of signals to countries like Iran," he said. "It does undercut the legitimacy of the other agreements we've got and it will also allows countries to feel they don't really need to belong to the NPT anymore." Greens Senator Christine Milne says the Prime Minister appears to have given up on international law. "If you're going to sell outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, does that mean to say we are now going to sell to Israel? Are we now going to sell to Pakistan?" "The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has been attacked from all sides but it's all we've got." John Howard says there would be no deal without the appropriate safeguards. The Federal Opposition says there should be no uranium exports to India unless it can be guaranteed the uranium will be used for peaceful purposes only. Labor's resources spokesman Martin Ferguson says any exports of Australian uranium must be bound by the treaty. "It's our uranium. There is a growing demand for it internationally but we have to determine what we think is right," he said. "It's about us deciding as a nation how our uranium should be used beyond Australian shores and ... I think that's very important in the minds of the Australian community." Environmental groups say the Federal Government would be assisting the ambitions of a rogue nuclear state if it allowed Australian uranium to be sold to India. David Noonan from the Australian Conservation Foundation says any change to the policy of not selling uranium to India would be irresponsible. "They have a limited supply of uranium, so if we give them as much uranium as they ask for, it simply frees them up to use that limited supply within the nuclear weapons program," he said. "We would then be complicit in India expanding and continuing its nuclear weapons agenda." ---- 'No Aussie uranium for India' Deccan Herald News Service New Delhi March 6, 2006 http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/mar62006/index202854200635.asp Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who arrived here on Sunday evening on a three-day state visit, said his country would not sell uranium to India. Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who arrived here on Sunday evening on a three-day state visit, said his country would not sell uranium to India. In a statement before embarking on his India visit, Mr Howard made it clear that his government did not have any plan to change its current policy. “We sell uranium to countries which adhere to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty,” asserted Mr Howard, who is visiting India for a second time in his ten-year tenure as prime minister of Australia — which has around 40 per cent of the world’s known uranium deposits. India, has refused to sign the NPT arguing that it is discriminatory. However, in light of the success of the Indo-US agreement on the supply of nuclear technology, New Delhi will try to push its case with Mr Howard, who was received on his arrival here by Minister of State for External Affairs Anand Sharma. “We’re certainly not going to suddenly change our policy just because the Indians and the Americans have reached an agreement,” Mr Howard said. Accompanied by hi-profile delegation, Mr Howard will hold meetings with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, President A P J Abdul Kalam, UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition L K Advani and Cabinet ministers. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- alabama TVA, Southern Co. join to study new nuclear plant for Alabama Associated Press Mon, Mar. 06, 2006 http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/local/14033367.htm CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. - For the first time, the Tennessee Valley Authority is considering the possibility of building a major power plant with a partner utility, a spokesman said. TVA and Southern Co. agreed in a memorandum of intent to jointly pursue building the next generation of nuclear reactors at the Bellefonte plant site in northern Alabama. TVA spokesman Brooks Clark said Monday the memorandum was signed recently. The project could create up to 2,000 jobs in Jackson County, Ala., during construction. "We're right there at the front of the line" among American utilities considering the next generation of nuclear power plants, TVA Senior Vice President Jack Bailey told The Chattanooga Times Free Press in a story published Sunday. "We are looking at a different design and licensing approach and different partnerships to help pay for such a plant. It's a new way of thinking for us." TVA and a consortium of utilities and equipment manufacturers have picked the Bellefonte site at Hollywood, Ala., for their new plant design. NuStart Energy Development LLC, an alliance of 11 utilities and manufacturers, wants to pursue a combined construction permit and operating license at Bellefonte for two AP1000 Westinghouse reactors. NuStart and the Department of Energy will split the projected $150 million cost for initial licensing and design costs for the new type of plant. Officials said most of the estimated $2 billion cost for each of the 1,200-megawatt reactors would be shared among the plant owners, if the project proceeds. "It's still very preliminary and we've made no commitments," said Sandi Robinson, a spokeswoman for the Southern Nuclear Operating Co., in Birmingham, Ala. "But with the higher and more volatile cost of gas and coal, nuclear power has certainly become more attractive." Southern is researching whether to build the Westinghouse AP1000 at both Bellefonte and its own Vogtle Plant near Waynesboro, Ga. Both TVA and Southern estimate they will need additional baseload power supplies by 2015. Bailey said TVA is also talking to its distributors about possibly sharing in the ownership of any new nuclear plant built at Bellefonte. The proposed nuclear plant is being designed to be simpler and safer than TVA's six existing licensed reactors. No new nuclear power plant has been ordered in the United States since 1973. Headquartered in Knoxville, TVA provides electricity to 8.5 million people in Tennessee and parts of Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. The New Deal-era agency also has an economic development component and manages the 652-mile Tennessee River system for flood control, navigation, resource protection and recreational uses. Information from: Chattanooga Times Free Press, http://www.timesfreepress.com -------- arizona Defective computer part shuts Palo Verde reactor Mar. 6, 2006 12:00 AM Arizona Republic http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0306valleybriefs0306.html PHOENIX - One of three reactors at the Palo Verde nuclear plant shut down Sunday morning due to a defective part in the unit's computer system. Arizona Public Service crews expect to fix the malfunctioning part and restart Palo Verde Unit 3 over the next couple of days, barring further problems, spokesman Jim McDonald said. The shutdown means the triple-reactor Palo Verde nuclear plant, the largest source of electricity for the Valley, is operating at less than half of full power. Unit 1 has been operating at 25 percent of capacity since mid-January due to a vibrating pipe. APS estimates that Unit 1's reduced output has cost it $20 million to buy replacement electricity, an amount the utility will seek to recover from ratepayers. -------- idaho INEEL High-Temperature Electrolysis Demo Produces Hydrogen for Record 1,000 Hours Green Car Congress, 6 March 2006 http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03/ineel_hightempe.html Researchers at DOE’s Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) ran a high-temperature electrolysis stack to produce hydrogen for 1,000 hours in the longest and largest experiment to date on processes that could lead to the production of hydrogen using nuclear energy. The stack, operating at 830º C (1,525º F), produced 177 normal liters of hydrogen each hour, or 4.248 normal cubic meters in a 24-hour period—an amount (0.36 kg) equivalent to about half of a driver’s average daily gasoline usage. INEEL has previously estimated that a single next-generation nuclear plant will be able to produce in hydrogen the energy equivalent of 200,000 gallons of gasoline each day. The US consumes about 9 million barrels of gasoline per day, or 378 million gallons. Conventional electrolysis splits water into its components—hydrogen and oxygen—by charging water with an electrical current. The charge breaks the chemical bond between the hydrogen and oxygen and splits apart the atomic components. The resulting ions form at two poles: the anode, which is positively charged, and the cathode, which is negatively charged. Hydrogen ions gather at the cathode and react with it to form hydrogen gas, which is then collected. Oxygen goes through a similar process at the anode. The main drawbacks of conventional electrolysis for large-scale hydrogen production are the amount of electricity required for the process and the high cost of membrane production. It takes about 142 MJ to produce 1 kilogram of hydrogen—about 40-50 kWh of electricity per kilogram of hydrogen. High-temperature electrolysis (HTE) adds in some of the energy needed to split the water as heat—from a source such as high-temperature steam from an advanced nuclear reactor system or an adapted solar energy system—instead of electricity. Because the conversion efficiency of heat to electricity is low compared to using the heat directly, HTE reduces the overall energy required. HTE uses a device very similar to an Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC). Essentially, the electrolytic cell consists of a solid oxide electrolyte with conducting electrodes deposited on either side of the electrolyte. A high-temperature mixture of steam and hydrogen is supplied to the anode side of the electrolyte. Oxygen ions are drawn through the electrolyte by the electrical potential and combine to O2 on the cathode side. The steam-hydrogen mixture exits and the water and hydrogen gas mixture is passed through a separator to separate hydrogen. Such a high-temperature system has the potential to achieve overall conversion efficiencies in the 45% to 50% range, compared to approximately 30% for conventional electrolysis. Added benefits include the avoidance of both greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption. We’ve shown that hydrogen can be produced at temperatures and pressures suitable for a Generation IV reactor. The simple and modular approach we’ve taken with our research partners produces either hydrogen or electricity, and most notable of all—achieves the highest-known production rate of hydrogen by high-temperature electrolysis. —Steve Herring, lead INEEL researcher This demonstration is seen as a necessary first step toward large-scale production of hydrogen from water rather than fossil fuels. INEEL has been working with Ceramatec, a private-sector company, on the project for several years. We’re pleased that the technology created over the nearly two decades dedicated to high-temperature fuel cell research at Ceramatec is directly applicable to hydrogen production by steam electrolysis. In fact, both fuel cell and hydrogen generation functionality can be embodied in a single device capable of seamless transition between the two modes. These years of investment, both public and private, in high temperature fuel cell research have enabled the Ceramatec-INEEL team to move quickly and achieve this important milestone toward establishing hydrogen as a part of our national energy strategy. —Ashok Joshi, Ph.D., Ceramatec CEO Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham recently announced a grant of nearly $2 million to a Ceramatec-led effort teaming with the INEEL, the University of Washington and Hoeganaes Corp. to continue work in the broad area of high-temperature electrolysis and fuel cell development. -------- mississippi Nuclear power gets push Environmental advantages touted, and federal government offers tax incentives. By Doug Abrahms GANNETT NEWS SERVICE Monday, March 6, 2006 http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060306/BUSINESS/603060310/1092 WASHINGTON — The summer of 1979 saw numerous protests against nuclear power plants around the nation, including one against an atomic reactor in Port Gibson, Miss. But few people near the Grand Gulf Nuclear Power in Port Gibson today would protest building a second reactor, because the first has run safely, said Jim Pilgrim, executive director of the Warren County Port Commission, which is located near Grand Gulf. Another plant also could lower natural gas prices as well as provide jobs, he said. President Bush, members of Congress, utilities and even a few environmentalists are pushing for nuclear power plants. One advantage of nuclear power facilities is that — unlike coal plants — they don't emit sulfur, mercury or carbon dioxide, a pollutant scientists say contributes to global warming. The downsides are that the industry produces about 2,200 tons of nuclear waste yearly that needs to be disposed of. To spur the construction of new nuclear power plants, the federal government has provided tax incentives in an energy law passed last year. They include: # A tax credit, worth $125 million a year for eight years, to be provided for producing electricity. # Loans, guaranteed by the federal government, for up to 80 percent of the construction costs of a nuclear plant. # Risk-delay payments of up to $500 million for plants that fall behind schedule due to red tape or litigation. There are long-term fundamental risks to building nuclear power plants, said John Kennedy, an industry analyst at Standard & Poor's, a Wall Street research company. It's difficult to predict the cost of building the first few U.S. nuclear plants or the price of electricity 10 or 20 years from now, he said. The environmental community is split on nuclear power. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace International, supports the technology because nuclear energy doesn't cause air pollution. "Nuclear energy has already made a sizable contribution to the reduction of (greenhouse gas) emissions in America," Moore told a Senate energy panel last year. Many in the energy industry think that once the first few nuclear plants are ordered, it will lead to a renaissance in atomic reactors producing electricity. A handful of companies have proposed building up to a dozen nuclear power plants, although no deal has been signed. The time to design and license nuclear plants should drop after the first few plants are approved, and facilities will become standardized, said Entergy's Keuter. "The subsequent ones should get cheaper," he said. "It looks very promising right now unless something happens." Contact Doug Abrahms at dabrahms@gannett.com. -------- nevada Getting to the bottom of Yucca Mountain 860-ton drill a monument to waste? By Benjamin Grove Las Vegas Sun March 06, 2006 http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2006/mar/06/566617772.html?Yucca%20Mountain%20Nuclear%20Waste%20repository WASHINGTON - In the classic children's book, "Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel," Mike promises that his beloved but outdated machine Mary Anne can still dig a cellar in a single day. And she proves it, carving out a perfect hole for the new Popperville town hall - only to realize she dug herself so deep there was no escape. So Mary Anne stayed there and adapted to a new role as the building's furnace, and as a kind of museum piece. So it is with the machine that dug the 5-mile exploratory tunnel in Yucca Mountain, a gigantic $13 million drill bit that sits at the site unused - and for sale with no takers - nine years after its job was done. The Tunnel Boring Machine is becoming a monument to the project itself. Historians may one day consider The Machine a testament to Man's ability to dream and build big, or maybe an aging symbol of a failed idea. In the mid-1990s, as The Machine rumbled, there was more excitement about Yucca. The nuclear industry was flush with optimism that it would soon have a place to bury the spent fuel that comes out of reactors. Public officials were confident they were pursuing the best, most technologically advanced solution to the nation's nuclear waste problem - burying it in tunnels under the mountain. Energy Department officials spoke of Yucca in lofty terms as a project unlike any the world has ever known. It was no less than a test of man's ambition - and hubris, some said. But the desert ridge had yet to be excavated so scientists could examine its innards. The Machine would give researchers entre to the inside of the mountain to study the rock and test its reactions to heat and moisture. So the government bought a massive piece of machinery befitting the size of the $58 billion repository project - one of the biggest drill bits in the world at 860 tons, 25 feet wide. The Machine arrived in pieces on 50 trucks from a plant in Kent, Wash. It was reassembled at the foot of the mountain, and on a September day in 1994 it began to gnaw. Powered by 12 motors and 3,800 horsepower spinning 48 17-inch "cutter wheels," The Machine did its job well. For two and a half years it chewed at the rock, three shifts a day, five days a week. On occasions it reached a top speed of 18 feet per hour. It consumed tons of rock and a $130 million budget. In April 1997, the 1.7 million-pound gopher emerged victorious from its five-mile, U-shaped hole. The moment was dubbed, "The Daylighting." Then-project manager Wesley Barnes pumped his fist with pride. Workers cheered. Not long after, the department treated The Machine to a bath of fresh white paint. But the glory faded. And with its work complete, The Machine was unceremoniously discarded not far from the tunnel's South Portal. It sits there still. The Energy Department has tried to get rid of it. Most of its attachment, which had included trailers and gantries that made the entire apparatus longer than a football field, were sold as scrap a few years ago. The Energy Department offered The Machine to other government agencies. The feds tried to sell it commercially. But it wasn't like unloading a 1994 Subaru. One potential buyer offered a few hundred thousand dollars, but the department refused to be low-balled. "The scrap alone is probably worth that," department spokesman Allen Benson said. Today, The Machine is the highlight of the Yucca Mountain tour. Visitors are awed by its size. Some Energy Department employees argue that it should be put on permanent display. Truth is, The Machine is already becoming a kind of monument to Yucca. It is either a symbol of the promise of the world's first high-level nuclear waste repository and Man's ability to engineer it, or a relic of a rusting idea the government keeps repainting, trying to restore its luster. ---- 'The Machine' now a symbol of Yucca project By BENJAMIN GROVE Las Vegas Sun 06-MAR-06 http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=YUCCA-03-06-06 WASHINGTON -- In the classic children's book, "Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel," Mike promises that his beloved but outdated machine Mary Anne can still dig a cellar in a single day. And she proves it, carving out a perfect hole for the new Popperville town hall _ only to realize she dug herself so deep there was no escape. So Mary Anne stayed there and adapted to a new role as the building's furnace, and as a kind of museum piece. So it is with the machine that dug the 5-mile exploratory tunnel in Yucca Mountain, a gigantic $13 million drill bit that sits at the site unused _ and for sale with no takers _ nine years after its job was done. The Tunnel Boring Machine is becoming a monument to the project itself. Historians may one day consider The Machine a testament to Man's ability to dream and build big, or maybe an aging symbol of a failed idea. In the mid-1990s, as The Machine rumbled, there was more excitement about Yucca. The nuclear industry was flush with optimism that it would soon have a place to bury the spent fuel that comes out of reactors. Public officials were confident they were pursuing the best, most technologically advanced solution to the nation's nuclear waste problem _ burying it in tunnels under the mountain. Energy Department officials spoke of Yucca in lofty terms as a project unlike any the world has ever known. It was no less than a test of man's ambition _ and hubris, some said. But the desert ridge had yet to be excavated so scientists could examine its innards. The Machine would give researchers entre to the inside of the mountain to study the rock and test its reactions to heat and moisture. So the government bought a massive piece of machinery befitting the size of the $58 billion repository project _ one of the biggest drill bits in the world at 860 tons, 25 feet wide. The Machine arrived in pieces on 50 trucks from a plant in Kent, Wash. It was reassembled at the foot of the mountain, and on a September day in 1994 it began to gnaw. Powered by 12 motors and 3,800 horsepower spinning 48 17-inch "cutter wheels," The Machine did its job well. For two and a half years it chewed at the rock, three shifts a day, five days a week. On occasions it reached a top speed of 18 feet per hour. It consumed tons of rock and a $130 million budget. In April 1997, the 1.7 million-pound gopher emerged victorious from its five-mile, U-shaped hole. The moment was dubbed, "The Daylighting." Then-project manager Wesley Barnes pumped his fist with pride. Workers cheered. Not long after, the department treated The Machine to a bath of fresh white paint. But the glory faded. And with its work complete, The Machine was unceremoniously discarded not far from the tunnel's South Portal. It sits there still. The Energy Department has tried to get rid of it. Most of its attachment, which had included trailers and gantries that made the entire apparatus longer than a football field, were sold as scrap a few years ago. The Energy Department offered The Machine to other government agencies. The feds tried to sell it commercially. But it wasn't like unloading a 1994 Subaru. One potential buyer offered a few hundred thousand dollars, but the department refused to be low-balled. "The scrap alone is probably worth that," department spokesman Allen Benson said. Today, The Machine is the highlight of the Yucca Mountain tour. Visitors are awed by its size. Some Energy Department employees argue that it should be put on permanent display. Truth is, The Machine is already becoming a kind of monument to Yucca. It is either a symbol of the promise of the world's first high-level nuclear waste repository and Man's ability to engineer it, or a relic of a rusting idea the government keeps repainting, trying to restore its luster. (Distributed by Scripps-McClatchy Western Service, http://www.shns.com.) -------- new york NRC annual assessment finds no significant safety issues at Indian Point Monday, March 6, 2006 Mid Hudson News http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/IP_ann_assmt-06Mar06.htm The annual assessment report for 2005 filed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the Indian Point Two and Three nuclear power plants finds “very low safety significance” of any issues relating to the operation of the facilities in 2005. In the area of reactor safety, it found very low safety significance – green – initiating events, mitigating systems, barrier integrity and emergency preparedness. In the area of radiation safety, it found similar findings for occupational radiation safety and public radiation safety. The NRC Indian Point Two was cited in one instance with a white listing for one incident of reactor safety mitigating systems in the second quarter of 2005. The overall review of the plants and their ratings proves the NRC is pleased with the progress of Entergy, the owner of the plants, said spokesman James Steets. “We’re gratified that the NRC has seen that we have made some significant improvements,” he said. “We’re not finished yet, of course. We are motivated to be a top decile plant, which means that this plant performs among the highest 10 percent of the plants.” The NRC said all 103 of the nation’s nuclear power plants continue to operate safely. ---- Radioactive Water Leaking from Indian Point WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (1010 WINS), Monday, 06 March 2006 http://www.1010wins.com/pages/12397.php? A leak from the Indian Point nuclear power plants has such tiny concentrations of radioactive tritium and strontium that there is no threat now to public health, officials said Monday. But politicians and the plants' owner pledged to keep track of any leaks, which tend to head toward the Hudson River, and to keep the public informed. Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano called in officials from several agencies on Monday after The Journal News reported that strontium-90 had been detected in a test well dug at Indian Point, which is in Buchanan on the east bank of the Hudson. The newspaper also reported that officials believe tritium, which had been found in the groundwater earlier, has reached the river. Spano, who was miffed that he learned about the strontium from the newspaper, demanded that whenever monitors discover something about the leak they answer ``a very important question: Is this something the public should hear right now?'' Tritium and strontium-90 are potential cancer-causing agents, though only at much higher levels, and the report triggered questions about whether the public should have been alerted when the state's Department of Health saw the first indication of strontium in December. The leak has been monitored since August, when radioactive water was found on the outside of a pool holding spent nuclear fuel. The source of the leak is a mystery. The plants' owner, Entergy, has dug nine wells on the site and plans 14 more in an attempt to determine the flow of the water and pinpoint the source. U.S. Reps. Nita Lowey, a Democrat, and Sue Kelly, a Republican, who were at Monday's meeting, said they were introducing legislation that would require nuclear plant operators to immediately report any unplanned release of radioactive materials, regardless of the concentration. ``I'm not a scientist,'' Lowey said. ``I'm not part of the Department of Health. I want to be sure there's full disclosure.'' However, Spano said, ``I don't think anyone screwed up.'' The Department of Health, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Entergy each had tested a sample of groundwater, and only the Department of Health had found a positive reading for strontium. The mixed results were re-evaluated, and confirmation came last week, said Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef. Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said, ``It would have been inappropriate'' for the Department of Health to announce its preliminary finding. He said even Entergy officials were not told. Steets also said that the concentrations of tritium and strontium in the leaking water are much smaller than in the water the plant legally releases into the Hudson, which runs partly between New York and New Jersey. ``We are permitted to release strontium and tritium in amounts thousands of times higher,'' he said. He said that although the leaking tritium is believed to be reaching the Hudson, the strontium-90, which is much more dangerous, may never get there because it tends to cling to clay and rock rather than flow with the water. Dr. Joshua Lipsman, Westchester's health commissioner, said, ``There is no risk to the public health." Last week, the environmental group Riverkeeper said state official knew about the leaks in December. -------- washington DOE seeks ideas for razing reactor Published Monday, March 6th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald staff writer http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/7506895p-7418043c.html The Department of Energy is asking the public for a second time what it should consider as it decides how Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility should be dismantled. DOE held a hearing on the matter in 2004. But now DOE has decided that a mandatory environmental study on razing the reactor should be rolled into a much larger study. That study is looking at the disposal of solid radioactive waste at Hanford, shipping waste off site and how to close Hanford's 149 leak-prone, single-shell tanks that have stored radioactive waste underground until it can be treated. It's fine for FFTF issues to be reconsidered, but hearings for the Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement later this month are not the place, said Pam Larsen, executive director of the Hanford Communities. She's afraid that when public hearings are held, particularly one planned in Seattle, the FFTF issue will distract from important decisions that need to be made about waste disposal at Hanford and closing the tanks. At past public hearings, Seattle residents have demanded the reactor be permanently shut down and Tri-City residents have pleaded for it to be saved. A restart of the reactor appears to no longer be an issue. After a bitterly fought battle by supporters to restart the reactor, DOE went ahead with a plan to destroy its core to drain liquid sodium. DOE considered that work part of a permanent shutdown. What's at issue now is how the reactor should be dismantled. "There was a lot of hand wringing" about whether to fold the FFTF environmental study into the larger environmental study, said Keith Klein, manager of Hanford's DOE Richland Operations Office, when the issue was raised by members of the Hanford Advisory Board in February. In 2005, the solid waste environmental study had been completed and work was progressing on separate studies on tank closure and dismantling FFTF. Plans changed after DOE learned that Pacific Northwest National Laboratory had quality control problems with groundwater information in the solid waste environmental study.The problem with the study was discovered during work on a lawsuit brought by the state to block DOE from bringing radioactive waste from elsewhere to Hanford. Some of it would be buried at Hanford, potentially affecting groundwater. DOE settled the suit in January, agreeing to redo the solid waste environmental study by combining it with the tank closure study. Both will lead to decisions on how much and where waste may remain in central Hanford after cleanup is completed. Since a draft of the FFTF study had yet to be completed, DOE decided to add it to the study, said Mary Beth Burandt, the environmental study document manager for Hanford's DOE Office of River Protection. The FFTF decision also will involve solid waste issues as DOE decides how much to tear down and how much of the reactor to dispose of in central Hanford. But because fuel and radioactive sodium will be removed from the reactor before it is dismantled, the decision on how to demolish it has very little environmental impact compared to other solid waste and tank decisions, Larsen said. Adding FFTF to the larger study "adds more confusion to the process," said Claude Oliver, the Benton County commissioner who led the unsuccessful fight to convince DOE to save the reactor to make isotopes for cancer treatments and to support research for the next generation of nuclear energy reactors. The reactor, which was DOE's most modern, was used from 1982 to 1992 for national and international research, including testing advanced nuclear fuels and nuclear power plant operating procedures. It also produced a large number of isotopes for medical and industrial users. For the last 13 years, DOE has had no use for the reactor that it considered economically viable. DOE is looking at two options for dismantling the reactor. DOE could entomb the reactor. Parts of the reactor above ground would be decontaminated and dismantled. Below-ground structures would be grouted and left in place. The second option calls for removing the entire structure and disposing of the waste created elsewhere at Hanford. DOE also is legally required to consider taking no action to dismantle the reactor. Public hearings are planned to hear concerns of the public, refine the issues the study should examine in detail and ensure that the document produced addresses the right issues to lead to a decision. The Tri-City hearing will be held at TRAC, 6600 Burden Blvd., Pasco, March 28. Participants may have informal discussions with officials from DOE and the Washington State Department of Ecology from 6 to 7 p.m. Formal presentations and comments begin at 7. Other meetings are planned in Seattle, Portland and Hood River. Comments also may be submitted in writing to Mary Beth Burandt, Document Manager, Office of River Protection, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 450, Mail Stop H6-60, Richland, WA, 99352. -------- MILITARY -------- afghanistan NATO commander: Drug trade is the greatest threat to Afghanistan By Drew Brown Knight Ridder Newspapers Mon, Mar. 06, 2006 http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14033110.htm WASHINGTON -The top military commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization said Monday that the narcotics trade poses a greater threat to Afghanistan than a rekindled insurgency by Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, NATO's supreme commander, said he doesn't think that Taliban and al-Qaida remnants can "restart an insurgency of any size or major scope," but that they're part of a "wider span of problems" that includes the opium trade and rampant criminality. Last week, however, Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples said that attacks by Taliban and al-Qaida forces had increased by 20 percent in the last year. Maples told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the insurgents represent a greater threat to Afghanistan now "than at any point since 2001," when U.S. troops and Afghan Northern Alliance rebels ousted the fundamentalist Taliban regime. A total of 129 soldiers from the United States and its allies died in Afghanistan last year, more coalition deaths than in any other year since the Taliban were ousted in 2001, according to icasualties.org, a Web site that tracks U.S. and allied casualties. Of those, 99 were Americans. Those fatalities included combat deaths and deaths resulting from accidents and other non-combat related causes. Jones said Monday that a 20 percent increase in attacks "is statistically not very significant" because the average number of daily attacks by Taliban and al-Qaida fighters had been "quite low." "I don't think we're heading towards a revitalized insurgency," Jones told reporters at the Pentagon. "And I think that the upticks in violence are in part attributable to the fact that we're actually going to more places and taking the engagement to the enemy." About 21,000 NATO troops from 36 countries are preparing to take over stability and security operations in southern and eastern Afghanistan in coming months. NATO will very likely take over stability operations throughout Afghanistan by the end of 2006, Jones said. Some U.S. troops will be included in the NATO force, but that number hasn't been determined. Most U.S. troops, however, will concentrate on areas in eastern Afghanistan along the Pakistan border, where Taliban, al-Qaida and other anti-government groups remain active and where Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding. Those soldiers will operate under a separate authority that reports to U.S. Central Command. There currently are about 23,000 U.S. troops in the country. Jones said NATO's primary mission will be to assist in extending the authority of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government across the country. Much of Afghanistan has never known central government rule and has been under the sway of powerful warlords since the Taliban's ouster. Many of those figures are close U.S. allies, but some are believed to have profited immensely from the opium trade, which was nearly wiped out by the Taliban, but has exploded since its collapse. U.S. intelligence officials believe the Taliban, al-Qaida and other anti-government groups are financing their insurgency in part through the narcotics trade. Karzai's government undertook an opium eradication program in 2004, and last year Afghanistan experienced a 21 percent decline in land devoted to poppy cultivation, the first since 2001. But opium production is likely to rise again this year, according to a U.N. report issued Monday. The U.N. report, based on a survey carried out in December and January, said poppy cultivation is increasing in 13 Afghan provinces, remaining the same in 16 and decreasing in three. Despite last year's decrease in overall land devoted to poppies, good weather and a low incidence of plant disease yielded a bumper crop of opium, the U.N. reported in November. Last year, Afghanistan produced an estimated 4,100 tons of opium, the main ingredient in heroin, about 87 percent of the world's supply, the U.N. reported. Most of the resulting heroin ended up in Europe, which is partly why NATO member countries have a keen interest in the Afghanistan mission, Jones said. He said that NATO troops won't participate directly in eradication, but will provide intelligence-gathering and surveillance. -------- asia 65,000 protest as Thai PM refuses to resign · Critics urged to adopt civil disobedience campaign · Thaksin to quit after poll if share of vote is below 50% John Aglionby, south-east Asia correspondent Monday March 6, 2006 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1724252,00.html?gusrc=rss Tens of thousands of anti-government protesters massed in central Bangkok yesterday in the latest rally aimed at ousting the beleaguered prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. The People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), a loose coalition from all walks of life organising the 65,000-strong demonstration, insisted the gathering at Sanam Luang, or Royal Field, would continue until the Thai prime minister resigned. "The rally will go on and we won't stop unless we win," said Suriyasai Katasila, a PAD leader. Theerayuth Bunmee, a prominent social critic, urged anti-Thaksin groups to adopt a "civil disobedience" campaign if the prime minister ignored their calls for him to resign. Mr Thaksin, who himself managed to pull a crowd of 100,000 to a rally in Bangkok on Friday, has refused to quit. He has instead called a general election on April 2, arguing that he should be judged by the nation and not just a "Bangkok rabble" he has branded "idiots". The former telecoms tycoon's political mentor, Chamlong Srimuang, is among those who have turned against Mr Thaksin. The hero of the 1992 popular revolt that toppled a military government said yesterday he would lead his "Dharma Army", clad in blue shorts and sandals, to the Democracy Monument near the Royal Field and camp there until dawn. Mr Katasila said he would not bow to police demands to disperse. "If the police don't allow us to stay at the venue, we have the right to disobey their orders," he said. "The rally will go on and we won't stop unless we win." Acknowledging that the forces coalescing against him are gaining strength, Mr Thaksin on Friday offered to resign if he did not secure 50% of the votes. He also promised to implement constitutional reform to strengthen the nation's democracy. Opposition parties have said they will boycott the election unless Mr Thaksin resigns. Analysts say such a strategy is extremely high risk because they will almost certainly be excluded from formal politics unless they can persuade enough Thais to follow their lead. The anti-Thaksin movement, which began last year, began to wane noticeably in January until Mr Thaksin's family made a £1.1bn tax-free windfall from selling their shares in the Shin Corporation in a deal lambasted as an abuse of power and conflict of interest. Backstory Critics of Thailand's prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, claim he has abused his position - he is one of the country's richest people and the first leader to enjoy an absolute parliamentary majority - to enrich his family, and abuse human rights. Unable to defeat him in parliament, opposition forces have taken to the streets. Several prominent figures have deserted him and the "pro-democracy" forces are large enough to force Mr Thaksin to call an election. An opposition boycott and Mr Thaksin's stubbornness mean the poll is unlikely to resolve the crisis. -------- russia / chechnya Russian law allows downing hijacked planes 3/6/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-06-russia-terrorism_x.htm MOSCOW — President Vladimir Putin signed a measure into law Monday that allows the Russian military to shoot down hijacked planes, the latest in a series of bills passed following terrorist attacks. The bill, which was approved earlier by both houses of Russia's parliament, authorizes the shooting down of hijacked planes if it appears possible that terrorists may intend to attack key facilities or populated areas. The bill also allows the military to attack ships being used in a terrorist act. Shooting the planes or ships would be permitted even if hostages were on board. The legislation is the latest legal measure to be passed in response to terrorist attacks in Russia in recent years. One of the most sweeping measures pushed by the Kremlin in the wake of the 2004 Beslan school hostage seizure radically changed how local legislative elections are held across the country. Militants demanding that Russian troops withdraw from the nearby republic of Chechnya seized the school in Beslan, and more than half of the 331 people killed were children. Most died in the climactic conclusion to the siege, when explosions tore through the school and security forces stormed the building. The anti-terrorism law passed Monday also permits negotiations with terrorists who have taken hostages but bars consideration of their political demands, and calls for armed forces to use Russia-based weaponry against terrorists operating outside its borders. The bill also permits law-enforcement officials to monitor telephone calls and take control of electronic communications in the area of a terrorist attack. ---- US urges Congress to lift Cold War trade law against Russia, Ukraine Mon Mar 6, 2006 (AFP) http://pakistantimes.net/latest3080602.htm WASHINGTON - The US government called on Congress to repeal Cold War legislation hindering trade relations with Russia and Ukraine after signing a bilateral WTO accession deal with Kiev. US Trade Representative Rob Portman (news, bio, voting record) and Ukraine's Economy Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk signed the agreement here to take the ex-Soviet republic a crucial step further towards joining the World Trade Organisation. "Ukraine's commitment to broad-based reform and economic liberalization will provide a welcoming environment for investment, both foreign and domestic," Portman said at the signing ceremony. "The agreement also demonstrates Ukraine's commitment to the international trading system," he said, after Kiev agreed to open up its markets more to US imports and to pursue an aggressive clampdown on counterfeit goods. Yatsenyuk noted that Ukraine had been battling to join the global trade club and its forerunner since 1994. "It was very tough work and the wait was very long. But we did it," he said. Applicants must conclude bilateral agreements with any WTO member who wishes one, and Kiev fears that Moscow would use this as a tool of political influence if it were to join the club first. Russia has dismissed such charges. The United States is still in bilateral WTO talks with Russia. Portman said he hoped those negotiations could be wrapped up before Russia hosts the Group of Eight summit in St Petersburg in mid-July. But for either bilateral accord to take effect, Congress must first repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the 1974 Trade Act, which was passed to punish the Soviet Union for restricting the emigration of Jews and other minorities. The Senate lifted the amendment's terms against Ukraine in November. But the House of Representatives has yet to pass its own legislation to that end for Ukraine, and the law's provisions also remain in effect against Russia. Until Jackson-Vanik is repealed, the US administration cannot declare normal trading relations with either country. "We are working very hard to complete our bilateral agreement with Russia and we are also working very hard frankly with the US Congress on both the Ukraine agreement and the Russia agreement, to be sure we can take them both through the political process here," Portman said. "We hope that that process will move relatively quickly. We think it's good for the United States, and incidentally for Ukraine and for Russia, to be members of the rules-based international system," he said. Yatsenyuk said: "We strongly support (the) accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO because we have (then) to act and exist in a similar legal environment." The minister said Ukraine is still in bilateral WTO talks with five other countries -- Australia, Colombia, Kyrgyzstan, Panama and Taiwan. The Australian negotiations are seen as the toughest, but Yatsenyuk expressed hope to wrap them up "in the nearest future". Under its deal with Washington, Ukraine agreed to lower its duty on US industrial imports to an average of 4.6 percent, while opening up its markets to US computers, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and aircraft. US companies in services such as banking, insurance and telecommunications will enjoy greater access to Ukraine's market. -------- space Test launch unit earns Outstanding rating BY TECH. SGT. REBECCA DANÉT Editor, Space and Missile Times March 6, 2006 http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/~swStaff/public_affairs/smTimes/stories/~story2.asp?HLSTAFF=y&HLPAO=y The 576th Flight Test Squadron and the 595th Space Group’s operating location A scored an outstanding rating on their Missile Standardization, Evaluation and Training assessment last week by 20th Air Force. The units also earned an unprecedented satisfactory or better report card on 43 individual task evaluations. “I’m not surprised by the impressive results,” said Lt. Col. S.L. Davis, 576th FLTS commander. “Our maintainers recently won the ’05 AFSPC Maintenance Effectiveness Award, these inspection results continue to confirm they’re the best missile maintainers in the command.” The inspection of each of the squadron’s five flights, Generation, Training, Munitions, Resources and Quality Assurance, took an indepth look at all aspects of the unit’s operations, said Maj. Kenneth Bibee, 576th FLTS maintenance supervisor. “These inspection results underline how top notch these maintainers are,” he said. “With the inspection coming just one week after our last launch, this was a little more challenging than usual,” Colonel Davis said. From munitions processing of the reentry vehicles for next month’s Minuteman III launch to wafer and booster processing, the inspectors didn’t miss a thing. They also looked at telemetry and communications equipment and other hardware along with the unit’s missile trainers and evaluators. Preparation for the inspection was steady but definitely manageable, Maj. Bibee said. The extensive effort put in by the 576th and the 595th teams played a direct roll in the outstanding result, he said. “We started back in November and at the same time began processing last month’s Minuteman launch,” Major Bibee said. “We were definitely busy and we worked a few Saturdays and family days, but it wasn’t too stressful and we were able to get everything done we needed to.” Two units assigned to the 30th Space Wing were also inspected; the 30th Logistics Readiness Squadron and the 30th Space Communications Squadron. “As with our operational test launches, we relied on great teamwork with the 30th to be successful during the inspection,” the colonel said. This year’s inspection follows a 2005 inspection by 20th AF and an Air Force Inspector General team. The team definitely noted overall improvements. They were excellent last time, but improved in several areas this year with an unprecedented number of outstanding ratings, the lead inspector said in his outbrief to the commander. Following its success, the 576th is set to launch another Minuteman III in March and two more throughout 2006. -------- spies Post-9/11 CIA agent fights deletions in book Published March 6, 2006 ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20060305-113623-1737r A member of the CIA's first post-September 11 class is claiming in a federal lawsuit that the agency violated his First Amendment rights by ordering dozens of deletions in his book about spy training after initial approval. T.J. Waters was among those chosen from more than 150,000 who submitted their resumes to the CIA, hoping to contribute personally to the U.S. government's counterterror operations. He worked for the agency from 2002 to 2004, going through training for the clandestine service but ultimately joining the CIA's intelligence analysis division for a brief time. Mr. Waters' book -- "Class 11: Inside the CIA's First Post-9/11 Spy Class" -- chronicles his year at the CIA's training facility, where recruits learn how to use disguises, how to withstand interrogation techniques and other spycraft. Known as "The Farm," the center's precise location, near Williamsburg, Va., remains classified. Mr. Waters said his class of more than 100 included a New York comedian, an executive chef, a professional athlete and the fiancee of a World Trade Center victim. The story, he said, puts their training in the context of world events: the sniper shootings in Washington in 2002, the Columbia shuttle disaster in 2003 and the dire warnings from the Homeland Security Department to buy plastic and duct tape. Older and more professionally experienced than the CIA's typical recruits, his classmates later were dispatched to Baghdad, post-tsunami Indonesia and other locales. "It is good for people to understand that these are normal human beings who are trying to do a hard job under extraordinary circumstances," Mr. Waters said Saturday evening. Current and former CIA employees are allowed to publish books, but they first must be cleared by a special review board to ensure they don't contain classified information. Mr. Waters said he thinks CIA Director Porter J. Goss opposes agency personnel's writing books and has put the publications review staff under pressure to slow the process. CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Dyck said the director is not seeking delays in the reviews. She said the prepublication review board exists to ensure that classified information is protected. "All former employees must go through this process," she said. "The goal is to clear manuscripts as quickly as possible, but more complex books that get into classified details do take longer." Mr. Goss has indicated he wants to get back to the agency's more clandestine roots. "We remain a secret agency," he told employees in a memo made public. Mr. Waters is going through the established publication process. His attorney, Mark Zaid, said Mr. Waters submitted his book to the agency in May 2004 and, by September 2004, four words were blocked from publication. He resubmitted changes for a final review about two months later. But last month, after more than a year of waiting, the agency informed him that dozens of deletions would be required -- many of them blocking previously cleared material. Mr. Waters charges in a federal lawsuit filed Friday that the agency violated its own guidelines, which establish a 30-day review for manuscripts, and his right to free speech. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- drug war AFGHANISTAN: Survey predicts rise in opium production in 2006 06 Mar 2006 Source: IRIN http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/ad65095caec89c5ff5fd5fe0d40dafc8.htm KABUL, 6 March (IRIN) - A recent survey shows that Afghan farmers are planting more poppy this year than in 2005, in what remains the world's biggest opium producing country, the United Nations warned on Monday. A rapid assessment survey of poppy production was carried out jointly by the Ministry of Counter Narcotics (MCN) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes (UNODC) in December 2005 and January 2006. The study was carried out by 70 local field surveyors in 469 villages in 266 districts across the country. The survey is conducted annually in advance of the full opium survey, which is published in autumn each year. In last year's survey, published in November 2005, UNODC reported that the amount of land under cultivation with opium had decreased by 21 percent compared to 2004. "This year, an increase [in poppy cultivation] is expected," Adrian Edwards, spokesman for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), told a press briefing in the capital Kabul. "The survey shows an increasing trend in poppy cultivation in 13 provinces, a stable trend in 16 provinces and a decrease in three provinces," Edwards explained. "Among the 13 provinces which show an increasing trend, seven reflect a strong increase, namely Helmand, Ghor, Uruzgan, Zabul, Nangrahar, Laghman and Badakhshan," Edwards noted. "We are concerned about these trends [in opium production]," Doris Buddenberg, UNODC Representative in Afghanistan said. "But they do not come as a complete surprise. It cannot be emphasised enough that counter narcotics is a long-term process, which must be based first of all on an overall development approach, and this takes a long time," Buddenberg added. The government said strategies to tackle the opium menace were having an impact. "While the survey predicts an increase [in opium production] in a number of provinces, it is important to note that effective governance and alternative livelihoods is having an impact on stabilising and reducing cultivation," Habibullah Qaderi, Minister of Counter Narcotics, said on Monday. Afghanistan still supplies almost 90 percent of the world's opium. The international community set up drug-eradication programmes in Afghanistan after US-led coalition forces toppled the hard line Taliban regime in 2001, but they have had limited impact on poppy production. -------- homeland security / national intelligence Guards fault Homeland Security protection 3/6/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-06-guards-homeland-security_x.htm WASHINGTON — The agency entrusted with protecting the U.S. homeland is having difficulty safeguarding its own headquarters, say private security guards at the complex. The guards have taken their concerns to Congress, describing inadequate training, failed security tests and slow or confused reactions to bomb and biological threats. For instance, when an envelope with suspicious powder was opened last fall at Homeland Security Department headquarters, guards said they watched in amazement as superiors carried it by the office of Secretary Michael Chertoff, took it outside and then shook it outside Chertoff's window without evacuating people nearby. The scare, caused by white powder that proved to be harmless, "stands as one glaring example" of the agency's security problems, said Derrick Daniels, one of the first guards to respond to the incident. "I had never previously been given training ... describing how to respond to a possible chemical attack," Daniels told The Associated Press. "I wouldn't feel safe nowhere on this compound as an officer." Daniels was employed until last fall by Wackenhut Services Inc., the private security firm that guards Homeland's headquarters in a residential area of Washington. The company has been criticized previously for its work at nuclear facilities and transporting nuclear weapons. Homeland Security officials say they have little control over Wackenhut's training of guards but plan to improve that with a new contract. The company defends its performance, saying the suspicious powder incident was overblown because the mail had already been irradiated. Two senators who fielded complaints from several Wackenhut employees are asking Homeland's internal watchdog, the inspector general, to investigate. "If the allegations brought forward by the whistle-blowers are correct, they represent both a security threat and a waste of taxpayer dollars," Democratic Sens. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Ron Wyden of Oregon wrote. "It would be ironic, to say the least, if DHS were unable to secure its own headquarters." Daniels left Wackenhut and now works security for another company at another federal building. He is among 14 current and former Wackenhut employees — mostly guards — who were interviewed by The Associated Press or submitted written statements to Congress that were obtained by AP. A litany of problems were listed by the guards, whose pay ranges from $15.60 to $23 an hour based on their position and level of security clearance. Among their examples of lax security: •They have no training in responding to attacks with weapons of mass destruction; •Chemical-sniffing dogs have been replaced with ineffective equipment that falsely indicates the presence of explosives. •Vehicle entrances to Homeland Security's complex are lightly guarded; •Guards with radios have trouble hearing each other, or have no radios, no batons and no pepper spray, leaving them with few options beyond lethal force with their handguns. Wackenhut President Dave Foley disputed the allegations, saying officers have a minimum of one year's security experience, proper security clearances and training in vehicle screening, identification of personnel, handling of suspicious items and emergency response. "In short, we believe our security personnel have been properly trained, have responded correctly to the various incidents that have occurred ... and that this facility is secure," he said. He declined, however, to address any of the current or former employees who have become whistle-blowers. Wackenhut is no stranger to criticism. Over the last two years, the Energy Department inspector general concluded that Wackenhut guards had thwarted simulated terrorist attacks at a nuclear lab only after they were tipped off to the test; and that guards also had improperly handled the transport of nuclear and conventional weapons. Homeland Security is based at a gated, former Navy campus in a college neighborhood — several miles from the heavily trafficked streets that house the FBI, Capitol, Treasury Department and White House. Homeland Security spokesman Brian Doyle said Wackenhut guards are still operating under a contract signed with the Navy, and the agency has little control over their training. A soon-to-be-implemented replacement contract will impose new requirements on security guards, he said. Daniels, the former guard who responded to the white powder incident, said the area where the powder was found wasn't evacuated for more than an hour. Available biohazard face shields went unused. Doyle said the concerns were overblown because all mail going to the Homeland Security complex is irradiated to kill anthrax. He said "the incident was resolved before anything was moved." Daniels said that after the envelope was taken outside, and the order finally given to evacuate the potentially infected area, employees had already gone to lunch and had to be rounded up and quarantined. Former guard Bryan Adams recognized his inadequate training one day last August, when an employee reported a suspicious bag in the parking lot. "I didn't have a clue about what to do," he said. Adams said he closed the vehicle checkpoint with a cone, walked over to the bag and called superiors. Nobody cordoned off the area. Eventually, someone called a federal bomb squad, which arrived more than an hour after the discovery. "If the bag had, in fact, contained the explosive device that was anticipated, the bomb could have detonated several times over in the hour that the bag sat there," Adams said. The bag, it turned out, contained gym clothes. Doyle, the Homeland spokesman, responded to several allegations raised by the guards. He said dogs were replaced because, "If you overuse them, their effectiveness drops." The detection equipment that substitutes for the dogs is a better method for detecting explosives, he said. Guards who used the equipment said it was no match for the reliability of the dogs. The Associated Press videotaped two vehicle entrances at Homeland headquarters with light security. One is guarded only during morning and evening rush hours. Movable metal barriers and an unmanned security vehicle only partially blocked the driveway, leaving enough room for a small car or motorcycle to drive through. Another entrance was guarded with a manned vehicle with two guards, but no other barriers. Doyle said the vehicle entrances were adequate because in all cases, a 10-foot fence topped with barbed wire separates vehicles from all buildings. Some guards who continue to work at Homeland, who would speak only on condition of anonymity because of fear of losing their jobs, said they knew of two instances in which individuals without identification got into the sensitive complex. Another described how guards flunked a test by the Secret Service, which sent vehicles into the compound with dummy government identification tags hanging from inside mirrors. Guards cleared such vehicles through on two occasions, this guard said, and one officer even copied down the false information without realizing it was supposed to match information on the employee's government badge. Doyle, the agency spokesman, said such tests are conducted routinely and "I can assure you that if people fail the test they are let go." Marixa Farrar, a former guard, said two guards always should have been stationed inside the main building where Chertoff had his office, but she often was on duty alone. One day last fall a fire alarm rang. As employees walked by Farrar, they asked if this was a fire or a test. "There were no radios, so I couldn't figure out if it was a serious alarm," she said. There was no fire. ---- Bill would let Homeland Security control ports deals By Amy Fagan THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published March 6, 2006 http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20060306-123558-2994r Senate homeland security panel Chairman Susan Collins said yesterday that she will introduce a bill to give the Homeland Security Department the lead in approving foreign takeovers of companies that touch on national security. The concern over a Dubai-owned company taking over some U.S. seaport operations has spawned a flurry of similar legislation on Capitol Hill, including bills to block the deal or prevent similar future deals. "The process right now is deeply flawed," Miss Collins, Maine Republican, said of the interagency committee currently charged with approving acquisitions such as the Dubai deal. "I think we need to scrap the committee, start again, constitute it within the Department of Homeland Security," Miss Collins said on ABC's "This Week," adding that a member of the intelligence community also should be part of the review panel. She said she'll introduce legislation this week with her committee's top Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. The main problem, she said, is that the review panel -- the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) -- is currently led by the Treasury Department, and thus "weighed towards investment concerns" instead of toward national security concerns. Although Miss Collins and Mr. Lieberman are fighting to give Homeland Security control, however, they've also suggested that those same officials ignored or covered up Coast Guard concerns about the terminal deal. And they've criticized the Homeland Security Department for lack of planning and response on Hurricane Katrina and on its spending priorities. President Bush has repeatedly defended the terminal deal, under which Dubai-based DP World will take over terminal operations in six major U.S. ports from a British company. After its initial administration approval caused a firestorm of criticism, the administration agreed to a 45-day review. Mr. Bush said he'd veto any bill to block the deal, but some key legislators are already pushing such measures. Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and the House Armed Services Committee chairman, last week declared that "Dubai cannot be trusted" and said he'll introduce a bill this week to block the deal. His bill also would kick out any foreign-owned company that leases port terminals or manages other critical U.S. infrastructure and require 100 percent inspection of all cargo coming into U.S. ports. Yesterday, he told ABC's "This Week" that Mr. Bush will probably change his mind about the deal once he learns of Dubai's problems, such as how the country allowed a shipment of devices used in nuclear weapons, despite U.S. protests. "I trust President Bush, but I think he needs to get more information," Mr. Hunter said. Sen. Byron L. Dorgan introduced a bill Friday to block the deal. "I don't need 45 days," the North Dakota Democrat said. "I don't need 45 minutes. ... It's just nuts." Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, is leading a bipartisan group that includes Miss Collins in pushing legislation that would give Congress the ability to veto the Dubai deal if they are not satisfied with the 45-day review. The five Democratic and five Republican senators in the group sent a letter to Senate leaders Friday, asking for assurances that Congress will be kept fully informed as the review progresses and will reserve the right to veto the deal if they aren't satisfied. Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, is pushing a companion House bill with 81 co-sponsors. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, wouldn't comment Friday on the bipartisan Schumer letter, saying he'll review it. But he said it's clear the Dubai deal has pushed CFIUS reform and ports security to the forefront as "two areas we have to address." In the House, Mr. King directed his committee members to craft a bipartisan ports security bill long before the Dubai issue emerged, but he said the current atmosphere "could be an opportunity to take advantage of this momentum to move forward." Similarly, Miss Collins used the Dubai debate last week to push her ports security bill, introduced last year with Sen. Patty Murray, Washington Democrat, and Mr. Lieberman. The bill would create minimum security standards for incoming cargo containers and a new office of cargo security policy and make other port security improvements. But Miss Collins is hardly alone in her desire to reform the CFIUS process. Senate banking panel Chairman Richard C. Shelby, Alabama Republican, has been complaining about the CFIUS process for a while and plans to introduce bipartisan legislation in the next few weeks. He, too, wants to ensure that CFIUS automatically subjects cases such as the Dubai deal to a full 45-day investigation, always considers all possible national security implications and keeps Congress in the loop. •Audrey Hudson contributed to this report. -------- POLITICS -------- investigations GOP lawmakers work to limit probe of domestic spying program By James Kuhnhenn Knight Ridder Newspapers Mon, Mar. 06, 2006 http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14033240.htm WASHINGTON - Republicans in Congress are trying to limit the scope of any investigation into how President Bush's secret domestic-surveillance program has operated. Some key lawmakers are also working to legalize such spying on U.S. citizens in the future, perhaps with some judicial restrictions. The dual-track effort is designed to protect the Bush administration from an all-out congressional inquiry into the secret program, while rejecting Bush's argument that he already has full legal authority to order such surveillance. The Senate Intelligence Committee is scheduled to vote Tuesday on a Democratic plan to conduct a broad investigation into the program. Committee chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., is trying to win support for a more limited inquiry. Roberts refused to say Monday whether he had the votes to forestall the Democratic demand for an investigation. Democrats need only one Republican to side with them to order such a probe. Under Bush's order and without court warrants, the National Security Agency has tracked electronic communications of U.S. residents the administration says are in contact with suspected al-Qaida members abroad. The program was first disclosed by The New York Times and acknowledged by Bush in December. Critics say Bush's action violates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires warrants from a special secret court to authorize government spying inside the United States. The partisan clash over the scope of an investigation prompted Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee last week to demand a meeting with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. He also threatened to restructure the Intelligence Committee in a way that would weaken Democrats. Reid on Monday dismissed Frist's call for talks. "Let's have the Intelligence Committee do its work," Reid said. "I believe that we should see if Senator Roberts, who is a man of his word, is going to allow a vote on whether there should be an investigation. So when that' s completed ... I'll be happy to consider a meeting, but until then, what's there to meet about?" In the Senate, a handful of Republicans has been working to give the president statutory authority to approve the NSA program. The administration argues that the president already has that power under the Constitution and a congressional resolution that gave Bush authority to use force in hunting down terrorists. Most Democrats and some Republicans reject that interpretation. Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina met Friday to discuss DeWine's proposal to legalize the warrantless spying while giving Congress the right regularly to review it. Graham wants a special federal court to have some authority over the program. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is proposing his own legislation that would require the foreign intelligence surveillance court to determine whether the NSA program is constitutional. Specter said Monday that only after such a determination can Congress decide whether and how to restrict the program legislatively. Meanwhile, Specter said Monday that he wants Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to testify again before his committee about the legal rationale for the NSA program. Specter said he worried that Gonzales' subsequent written responses to the committee suggested that the administration was conducting other secret programs. "The letter that he sent to clarify his testimony raises a lot more questions," Specter said. "There is a suggestion in his letter that there are other intelligence programs which are currently under way." The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jane Harman of California, said last week that Gonzales and White House counsel Harriet Miers assured her by telephone that no broader program exists. Harman's conversation was first reported by The Washington Post on Friday. -------- us politics On security, it's Congress vs. Bush Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are taking on the president over terrorism and American power. By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor March 06, 2006 http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0306/p01s04-uspo.html WASHINGTON – Republican lawmakers are moving into open confrontation with the White House on everything from its conduct of the war on terrorism - at home and abroad - to its vision of American power. It's a shift that reframes the final 35 months of a presidency that has counted on the Republican-controlled Congress to follow its lead, especially on issues of national security. The GOP-controlled Congress has sparred with the White House before, on issues like spending restraint and Social Security reform. But since the Katrina debacle and, more recently, the Dubai ports deal, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are taking on the president over what has been his strength: national security. So far, most of the fireworks have been in the Senate, where lawmakers last week forced changes in the USA Patriot Act, blasted the Dubai ports deal - including calls for a congressional veto - and held a second hearing to help craft a new law to curb domestic spying without a warrant. This week, the revolt spills into the House, where GOP leaders have traditionally given President Bush his most dependable support. Monday, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R) of California, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, will propose legislation that not only axes a Dubai firm's takeover of terminals at six American ports but also would require all foreign owners to divest management of US port facilities and other assets deemed critical to national security. "We can't trust Dubai with our critical infrastructure," he says, citing reports that United Arab Emirates officials moved components of weapons systems through Dubai, including high-speed electrical switches to Pakistan, 70 tons of heavy water to India, and gas centrifuge parts to Iran. Neither the president nor congressional leaders have been adequately briefed on the matter, he adds. Later in the week, the International Relations Committee is expected to begin tough hearings examining Mr. Bush's proposed US-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, which provides American assistance to India's nuclear power industry but does not require concessions on its nuclear weapons program. It's a side deal that allows India to ramp up its production of weapons-grade plutonium, encouraging other nations to violate nonproliferation agreements at a critical time, congressional critics say. US law prohibits the sale of nuclear technology to any nation, such as India, which has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In a short statement, International Relations chairman Henry Hyde (R) of Illinois said that his committee will "thoroughly examine the specific provisions of this agreement and its potential consequences for US interests and those of the international community." Like many of his colleagues, Chairman Hyde has been simmering over the priorities of foreign policy under the Bush administration. In an opening statement in hearings over the International Affairs budget request for FY 2007, he challenged whether the Bush administration's commitment to worldwide promotion of democracy makes sense without a commitment to "long-term presence of American power" that the nation can't afford. "There is no evidence that we or anyone can guide from afar revolutions we have set in motion. We can more easily destabilize friends and others and give life to chaos and to avowed enemies than ensure outcomes in service of our interests and security," said Hyde, who is retiring. Reps. Edward Markey (D) of Massachusetts and Fred Upton (R) of Michigan have already launched a coalition to oppose congressional approval of the nuclear deal with India. "There is bipartisan opposition to this deal in the Congress, and when the full story is known it will be a bookend to the Dubai port deal - another case of the Bush administration announcing a commercial deal without due regard for its impact on national security interests," said Mr. Markey in a statement last week. Most of the opposition on Capitol Hill is still focused on the Dubai ports deal, which caught members off guard during the last congressional break. At the end of a closed briefing last Monday, Sen. Susan Collins (R) of Maine, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said she was "more convinced than ever that the process was truly flawed." GOP senators are discussing whether to press for a vote on the deal. But however strongly Republicans disagree with the Bush White House, they are also not eager to see the president slip still further in public opinion polls, especially in the runup to fall elections that could tip control back to Democrats. "While Republicans are taking the president on more these days, they don't want him to fail," says Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. With most of the public attention focused on ports, the nuclear deal with India may yet squeak through the Congress. "Improving relations with India gives the president a win when he's beleaguered at home," he says. ---- Bush asks Congress for line-item veto power 3/6/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-06-line-item-veto_x.htm WASHINGTON — President Bush proposed a new law Monday that would give him the power to control spending by vetoing specific items in spending bills — authority that the Supreme Court struck down nine years ago but which would be structured differently under Bush's plan. "Forty-three governors have this line-item veto in their states," Bush said. "Now it's time to bring this important tool of fiscal discipline to Washington, D.C." Both Republican and Democratic presidents have sought the power to eliminate a single item in a spending or tax bill without killing the entire measure. President Clinton got that wish in 1996, when the new reform-minded Republican majority in the House helped pass a line-item veto law. Two years later, the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional because it allowed the president to single-handedly amend the law. "Congress gave the president the line-item veto in 1996, but because with problems the way the law was written, the Supreme Court struck it down," Bush said. "That should not be the end of the story." Bush announced his plan, which he first revealed in his State of the Union address a month ago, at the swearing-in ceremony for Edward Lazear, the new chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Bush has not vetoed any legislation during five years in office, but he said the line-item veto would help "reduce wasteful spending, reduce the budget deficit and ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely." The earlier version of the line-item veto allowed Clinton to single-handedly strike parochial projects and special interest tax breaks. It was passed by Congress as one of the key planks of the GOP's "Contract With America." Instead, Bush is proposing that he be allowed to send Congress proposals to strike earmarks from spending bills and that Congress be required to bring them to a vote. That very version was pushed by Democrats in the 1990s — including Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, who filed suit against the 1996 law. John Kerry, D-Mass., pushed a similar approach in his presidential campaign. Still, the most recent plan was actually voted down by the House two years ago as it considered proposals to overhaul the budget process. But now that Congress itself is pushing for "earmark reform," they may be more willing to go along. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Cold Times Ahead: Energy Policies Leave Sweden in the Dark From the desk of Waldemar Ingdahl Mon, 2006-03-06 Brussels Journal http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/884 Sweden is often hailed as an example by the greens and the left for creating a “green welfare state” and eliminating all non-renewable energy resources by the year 2020. This certainly sounds very comforting for a European Union facing an energy crisis. “If Sweden can do it, so can we,” one could say. Unfortunately, mostly the cheerful reports of Sweden’s switch to renewable energy sources only look at government communiqués. Sweden does have a large need for energy. Winters are cold and Swedish industries are often energy intensive. With an ample supply of hydropower and nuclear energy this demand was met. However, in the name of the green welfare state no more hydropower plants will be built, and in a referendum in 1980 it was decided to close down all nuclear power plants. The process has slowly started, and last year the nuclear power plant of Barsebäck was closed at the cost of 18.5 billion Swedish krona (€1.92 billion) according to parliamentary report. A very high cost in order to not produce energy. Mona Sahlin, minister for sustainable development, is still keeping the Swedes in the dark about what is to actually replace nuclear energy. The slow pace in abolishing nuclear power is due to the fact that the social democratic government is well aware that oil and nuclear power provide about 80% of Swedish energy. But international press releases cost less. Sweden’s neighbour, Finland, has a similar need for energy. The Finnish are currently building new nuclear plants. They regard nuclear energy as a reliable energy source that does not contribute to CO2 emissions. They are also wisely building a discrete cable for energy export to Sweden. Discussions about building new nuclear plants are also brewing in France and the UK. There is a strong correlation between the availability of cheap, reliable energy and economic growth. Environmental policies often seem to be conceived to damage economic growth in the name of a green myth, while, hypocritically, the power needed is being bought from polluting Polish coal power plants. These policies have already begun to affect ordinary people in Sweden. They have to pay higher energy prices and suffer recurring power shortages. Some municipalities have advised the citizens to stock up on candles and canned foods in winter. The situation for the Swedish consumer is especially tragic since the social democratic government actually introduced some good reforms in the past. Back in 1996 they introduced extensive market reforms in energy production and in the trade for electricity. The government monopolies on different parts of the production and distribution chains were removed or at least decreased. The reforms made it possible for the consumer to freely choose between electricity providers and to personally renegotiate contracts. Today 50% of all consumers have either changed provider or made new deals with their old provider. Many nations in the EU could still take cues from the earlier Swedish reforms. But market reforms have to be upheld, and in the decade since these reforms the Swedish politicians have failed to do so, while the government’s “green welfare state” project has worsened the situation. The Swedish Competition Authority recently pointed out that the electricity market is again dominated by a few companies, owned by the Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian governments. While this certainly is not a positive development, a problem that the Authority did not address is that the consumer, owing to extensive taxation, is increasingly unable to influence the price he is paying for electricity. Of the total price the Swedish energy consumer pays, the cost for producing electricity is only about 30%. Around 25% of the energy bill has to account for various types of fees to the energy providers. As much as 45% is made up of taxes. The high degree of taxation means that the consumers’ choices barely affect the costs they are paying. The advantageous situation of the Swedish energy market in the late 1990’s, due to government’s reforms, was taken as a signal by the government that fresh tax money could be made by undercutting the beneficial effects. Moreover, the implementation of the European emission trading directive has increased the marginal cost of energy production. The Swedish Competition Authority asserts that this increase has been fully redirected to the consumers. What Sweden is currently experiencing is not a bold experiment in “sustainable development.” There are still some positive effects of the market reforms introduced previously, while the failures, misjudgements and revocations of market reforms are being covered up in green rhetoric that will not keep the Swedes warm in the winter nor keep their industries competitive. ---- Build on momentum for cleaner energy Wisconsin State Journal editorial MON., MAR 6, 2006 http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/opinion//index.php?ntid=75172 The renewable energy bill poised to pass the Legislature this week is a victory for Wisconsin in the way that the completion of a blueprint is a victory for a home builder. What matters most is what comes next. Wisconsin policy makers should follow up the renewable energy bill with more legislation to improve the state's energy independence and to encourage the development of energy sources that are better for the environment. In addition, businesses and consumers should follow through by focusing on the opportunities to profit and save with new energy sources and conservation strategies. The renewable energy bill, already passed by the Senate, is predicted to sail through the Assembly. It would require the state's utilities to provide 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by the end of 2015. It would also require state agencies to get 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by the end of 2011. The bill contains provisions to improve energy efficiency as well. By creating a demand for renewables, the legislation will help to lead Wisconsin toward cleaner sources of energy, like wind, that can be produced right here. The more that the demand for electricity can be met by renewables, rather than coal and natural gas, the better for the state's environment and economy. But boosting renewable energy for electricity is no more than a piece of an energy strategy. The Legislature should do more. Top priority should be given to a proposal to require that most gasoline sold in the state be blended to produce E10, motor fuel that is 10 percent ethanol. Ethanol is an alcohol fuel with important advantages over gasoline: Ethanol can be made from corn and other renewable, home-grown crops; and when substituted for gasoline, ethanol cuts carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to greenhouse gases linked to global warming. The Assembly has already passed the E10 mandate. The bill also has the support of Gov. Jim Doyle, who last week ordered all state agencies to cut the use of gasoline, in favor of ethanol, by 50 percent over the next 10 years. The hold-up is the Senate. Senators should recognize the benefits the E10 mandate offers for the environment and economy and pass the bill. The Legislature should also end Wisconsin's two- decade-old ban on building nuclear power plants. As demand for electricity grows, nuclear energy is an option the state cannot afford to reject if it hopes to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Rep. Michael Huebsch, R-West Salem, has introduced a bill to retire the outdated nuclear moratorium. It deserves adoption. The right policies from state government, combined with educated choices by the private sector, can build for Wisconsin a more secure future through the development of alternatives to fossil fuels. Adoption of the renewable energy bill is an important step. The state should build on the momentum. -------- OTHER -------- health WHO: Bird flu virus greater challenge than AIDS 3/6/2006 Associated Press http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-06-cats-bird-flu_x.htm GENEVA (AP) — The lethal strain of bird flu poses a greater challenge to the world than any infectious disease, including AIDS, and has cost 300 million farmers more than $10 billion in its spread through poultry around the world, the World Health Organization said Monday. Scientists also are increasingly worried that the H5N1 strain could mutate into a form easily passed between humans, triggering a global pandemic. It already is unprecedented as an animal illness in its rapid expansion. (Related: Understanding avian flu) Since February, the virus has spread to birds in 17 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East, said the WHO's Dr. Margaret Chan, citing U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization estimates of the toll on farmers. "Concern has mounted progressively, and events in recent weeks justify that concern," Chan, who is leading WHO's efforts against bird flu, told a meeting in Geneva on global efforts to prepare for the possibility of the flu mutating into a form easily transmitted among humans. U.S. health officials said Monday they have authorized the development of a second vaccine to combat the deadly virus, which already is believed to be changing. The U.S. government has several million doses of a first bird flu vaccine based on a sample of virus taken from Vietnam in 2004. The virus is believed to have mutated since then, health officials said. "In order to be prepared, we need to continue to develop new vaccines," Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said Monday at an immunization conference. In Austria, state authorities said Monday that three cats have tested positive for the deadly strain of bird flu in the country's first reported case of the disease spreading to an animal other than a bird. The cats had been living at an animal shelter where the disease already was detected in chickens, authorities said. Poland reported its first outbreak of the disease, saying Monday that laboratory tests confirmed that two wild swans had died of the lethal strain. Chan told more than 30 experts in Geneva that the agency's top priority was to keep the deadly H5N1 strain of bird flu from mutating. "Should this effort fail, we want to ensure that measures are in place to mitigate the high levels of morbidity, mortality and social and economic disruption that a pandemic can bring to this world," she said. WHO says 175 people are confirmed to have caught bird flu, and 95 of them have died. "No one can say when this will end," Chan said. Global influenza pandemics — as opposed to annual recurrences of seasonal flu — tend to strike periodically. In the 20th century, there were pandemics in 1918, 1957 and 1968. WHO said bird flu could potentially cause more deaths than those from the global flu pandemics. Because the H5N1 virus is airborne, it is easier to transmit and much more contagious than HIV/AIDS, WHO officials said. Dr. Mike Ryan, director of epidemic and pandemic alert and response at WHO, said, "We truly feel that this present threat and any other threat like it is likely to stretch our global systems to the point of collapse." This is the first time world health authorities have tried to stop a global influenza pandemic before it begins. Chan referred to the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, as evidence of "how much the world has changed." SARS infected 8,000 people, killing 800 of them. "In a globalized economy, with high volume of international travel, vulnerability to new disease threats is universal," she said. "It is the same for the rich and for the poor." WHO spokeswoman Maria Cheng said experts hope to isolate areas where there is a bird flu outbreak and establish agreements allowing international health authorities to respond quickly, testing viruses and implementing containment measures. Public health measures to quarantine areas, isolate people or help give antiviral medicine to those infected with bird flu also are on the agenda of the meeting, which ends Wednesday. Even if a pandemic cannot be stopped, WHO says such measures can buy time for health authorities to improve their response strategies and stave off the disease until a pandemic vaccine can be produced. Meanwhile, a top animal health official with the Rome-based U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization said developed countries had responded slowly to bird flu, failing to control the disease in Asia and not doing enough to prepare poor countries, particularly in Africa, for its spread. "In 2004 we said it will be an international crisis if we don't stop it in Asia, and this is exactly what is happening two years later," said Joseph Domenech, head of FAO's Animal Health Service. "We were asking for emergency funds and they never came. We are constantly late." -------- ACTIVISTS Iraqi Women Make Rare Trip to U.S. to Tell Their Stories of Life Under Occupation Monday, March 6th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/06/1424239 This weekend, five Iraqi women arrived in New York City to begin a speaking tour to educate Americans about the reality in Iraq and meet with UN and US officials to call for a peace plan. Two of them join us in our firehouse studio: Faiza Al-Araji is a civil engineer and blogger, whose family recently fled to Jordan after her son was temporarily kidnapped, and Eman Ahmad Khamas, an Iraqi journalist, translator and human rights activist. [includes rush transcript] We turn now to the War in Iraq. Nearly three months after a December election, Iraq's divided political leaders are still fighting over the crucial post of prime minister in the new government. Iraqi president Jalal Talabani said Monday he would convene parliament in six days but there is little chance of forming a unity coalition. Talabani is leading a group of Sunni, Kurds and others opposing Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's bid for a new term amid anger over the recent surge violence in the country. In the latest bloodshed, a car bomb in Baquba north of Baghdad killed six people, two of whom were girls under four years old. As many as 1,300 Iraqis were killed the week following the February 22nd bombing of the gold dome of the Askariya shrine in Samarra - one of the holiest sites to Shiite Muslims. It marked one of the bloodiest periods since the U.S. invaded the country nearly three years ago. While the bloodshed appears to have at least temporarily subsided, the outbreak of violence last week has raised new concerns about where Iraq is headed and the prospect of an outbreak of all-out civil war. But back in Washington, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace was asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" how things are going in Iraq. He replied, "I'd say they're going well. I wouldn't put a great big smiley face on it, but I'd say they're going well." Pace's comments come as Amnesty International releases a new report condemning what it calls the "arbitrary" detention of tens of thousands of people in Iraq. In a new report, the human rights group says the situation has become "a recipe for abuse." Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen said: "As long as U.S. and U.K. forces hold prisoners in secret detention conditions, torture is much more likely to occur, to go undetected and to go unpunished." Today we speak about Iraq with Iraqis. This weekend, five Iraqi women arrived in New York City to begin a speaking tour to educate Americans about the reality in Iraq and meet with UN and US officials to call for a peace plan. We are joined by two of them in our firehouse studio: * Faiza Al-Araji, a civil engineer and blogger. She is a religious Shia with a Sunni husband, and mother of three. After one son was recently held as a political prisoner by the Ministry of the Interior, the family fled to Jordan. Her blog is afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com * Eman Ahmad Khamas, journalist, translator and activist. She is a member of the Women's Will organization, which focuses on defining and defending women's rights. For the past three years she has been documenting crimes committed by US and Iraqi forces. She is the former Director of International Occupation Watch Center Baghdad. She is married with two daughters and lives in Baghdad. * Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Global Exchange and Code Pink that organized the delegation of Iraqi women. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Back in Washington, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, was asked by Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press how things are going in Iraq. TIM RUSSERT: If you were to be asked whether things in Iraq are going well or badly, what would you say? How would you answer? GEN. PETER PACE: I’d certainly say they are going well. I wouldn't put a great big smiley face on it, but I would say they are going very, very well. AMY GOODMAN: General Pace's comments come as Amnesty International releases a new report condemning what it calls the “arbitrary” detention of tens of thousands of people in Iraq. In this new report, the human rights group says the situation has become "a recipe for abuse." Amnesty International’s UK Director, Kate Allen, said, "As long as U.S. and U.K. forces hold prisoners in secret detention conditions, torture is much more likely to occur, to go undetected and to go unpunished." Today, we will talk about Iraq with Iraqis. This weekend, seven Iraqi women arrived in New York City, or at least were supposed to, to begin a speaking tour to educate Americans about the reality in Iraq and meet with U.N. and U.S. officials to call for a peace plan. We will be joined by two of them, but before we go to them, I wanted to turn to Medea Benjamin, who is organizing this tour around the country, founder of Code Pink Women for Peace. Medea, I said seven women came into the country or were supposed to, because, in fact, only five made it? MEDEA BENJAMIN: Two of the women who we wanted to bring here were women whose entire families were killed by the U.S. military. As they were driving in their cars to get away from the violence, the tanks came and shot into their cars. One woman talks about her little boy on her lap and seeing the bullet go right through his forehead, her other two children killed, her husband killed, and her left in the car with the bloody bodies. We thought it was important to bring these women to meet with Cindy Sheehan, other U.S. mothers who have lost their children. And yet, when these women went to apply for their visas, they were denied. When I called the State Department to find out why, they said they had no compelling family ties left in Iraq that would ensure that they would return home, so they were at risk of staying in the United States. AMY GOODMAN: So, they were denied entry into the United States because the U.S. military had killed their families? MEDEA BENJAMIN: They could not prove that they would want to go home. So, yes, we killed their families and then denied them the right to come to the United States to tell what the U.S. had done to their families. AMY GOODMAN: So, the five women who are here, what are your plans? Where are you going starting today? MEDEA BENJAMIN: This is part of Code Pink's campaign called “Women Say No to War.” And we have a rally today at noon in front of the United Nations. We are calling on the U.N. to stand up and do something, to call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and send in U.N. peacekeepers. Any New Yorkers listening, please join us at noon, and then on Wednesday, International Women's Day, we will be meeting with Congress, we’ll be doing briefings at Congress, and we will be marching from the Iraqi embassy to the White House with our call for peace. Our call for peace has so far been signed by tens and tens of thousands of women and men around the world. AMY GOODMAN: About 70,000? MEDEA BENJAMIN: About 70,000 to date, and if there’s one thing I’d ask your listeners, Amy, to do is get online now, go to WomenSayNoToWar.org, whether you’re a woman or a man, and sign up so we can count you in with us when we march to the Iraqi embassy, to the White House, and go through the halls of Congress, turning in our urgent call for peace. AMY GOODMAN: Well, we are also joined by Faiza Al-Araji, who has just come into the United States as part of this tour. She did make it, and you came from Amman, is that right? FAIZA AL-ARAJI: Yes. AMY GOODMAN: You just heard the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, when asked how things are going, saying they were going very well, but he wouldn't put a smiley face on it, but that things are going very well. What is your response? FAIZA AL-ARAJI: I'm watching the documentary on the TV now. I’m Iraqi. I left Iraq because of the kidnapping of my son in the last summer and stay in Jordan as refugee. You know, the story went out; living there is different. It’s completely different about the story your media is sending you or the message the media is sending you. When somebody telling you that things is going on in Iraq well and everything is fine, please ask him, “What is your evidence? What is your proof? What is your clue? Give me. Give me something on the ground.” I can make a kind of debate. I'm ready to have a debate with the American leaders, to sit with them in front of the American people. I want to hear from them, and I will give them the answers for everything they are talking about, because we have the real story on the ground. After three years of evaluation, I think Iraqis have the right to talk about the evolution of the war, not the American leaders, because we are who are suffering here and we are -- we lost the money of Iraq, we lost the souls of Iraqis, we lost the souls of loved ones in Iraq. We have -- our kids have been kidnapped. Our neighbors have been killed. We lost everything. But what about the leaders? They are sitting in their chairs, and they have the power. And they did nothing for the Iraqi people to help the Iraqi people. I'm not telling this from my mind. It is facts on the ground. AMY GOODMAN: What happened to your son? FAIZA AL-ARAJI: My son was in the college. My son is not the only story. It is a familiar story for the Iraqi families nowadays. My son was going to the college in the morning. He finished his exam, and he went to continue his operation in their office, you know, in the college. The security man faced him, and he was a new one. And that’s a new government, you know, how the style of security man. He asked him, “Where are you going?” My son was not very friendly. He asked him, “It is not your work. I'm going to finish my work in there. I’m familiar here, and this is my college.” When he finished his work with the employee, and he went out, the security man stopped him, and he said, “I want to open your wallet, and I want to check your identity.” He said, “Let me see your boss.” Khalid asked him. And he said, “Okay. You have to wait here.” He was sitting to wait, and they got a bag. They put it on his head, and they arrested him and put him in the pickup and get him out of the college to the Interior Ministry, put him in the seventh floor, like this is the zone of the terrorist people. And he saw the people who were there. There were about 50 or 60 people sitting in that floor. Nobody -- they have been there in this room since three or four months. Their families don't know about them, if they are alive or they are dead. They have no right to contact their families. They have no right to have a lawyer. They are just suspected people. And after that, they told him that “You are innocent. We have nothing against you, but you have to tell your parents to pay money.” We have to pay money to get your innocent son from their hands. I will pay a thousand of dollars and get our son out of Iraq, and the whole family went out of Iraq. We closed the house. And this is the familiar story in Iraq now. Every day, stories of horrible – the life is horrible for Iraqis now. Iraq now is the hell. It is the land of hell. There is nothing. There's no electricity. There’s no water. There's no security. You can’t send your boy to the school, because you are scared. You have to change the priority of your life. What is the priority? The education of my son or the life of him? Yes, sure. The life of my son. So the people are putting their son in the houses. They will never send them to the schools or to the universities. And you can imagine what kind of life, if you want to move to your job or to your school, and there’s curfew or there is blocks of concrete barriers for the occupation and checkpoints and checkpoints, and everywhere. It is a kind of hell. You can’t go out for shopping. You can’t go for the hospital. Everything is -- everything is destroyed in Iraq now. And this is for the services or the conditions on the ground. And what about the civil war? Somebody is pushing the country to, you know, to get the option of civil war. Why? Who is the benefit? Iraqis are against civil war. If you have the chance to go to move in the streets of Iraqis and asking everyone, “Are you with the civil war?” they will say, “No.” Okay, if you have like official meeting with the leaders of religion and political parties and social parties and everything, they will say, “No.” So the question is: Who is pushing the country to choose civil war? It’s just to taunt the society and to destroy the race of Iraq? This is strange point, but the people thought that. The only one who will benefit from this civil war is the occupation force, because it will give them the justification to stay forever in Iraq. They are building army bases to stay in Iraq. So, we have no other explanation. AMY GOODMAN: Faizal Al-Araji, we have to break, but when we come back, we will continue with you, as a civil engineer and a blogger who has informed people outside of Iraq what's going on there. We will also be joined by Eman Khamas, who is a journalist, translator and activist, who also made it out of Baghdad. And Medea Benjamin, I want to thank you for being with us, of Code Pink. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We continue with our guests today. We are joined by Faiza Al-Araji, who is a civil engineer, who has just flown in from Amman, lived in Iraq until this past summer when her son was kidnapped. We are also joined by Eman Ahmad Khamas, who is a journalist, translator and activist, a member of the Women’s Will organization. We welcome you both. I asked you during the break, Faiza, are you Sunni or Shia? FAIZA AL-ARAJI: I don't like this question. I'm Iraqi. And I'm insisting I am Iraqi. I don't want to use these new titles, have been entered Iraq after Bremer. When he entered Iraq he put this division for the Iraqi people. And we refuse it. AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean it’s just been introduced? I mean, there is a sense in the media in this country that this is age-old sectarian, almost tribal hatred. FAIZA AL-ARAJI: Oh, my God. Yeah, they are trying to tell you another story. The reality is there. We are brothers and sisters. We are Muslim, my dear. This is the identity of the nation. We are Muslim. But they are trying to divide the people, to go to the sub-identity, to make a cause of fighting or to provoke the people against each other. And we refuse it. AMY GOODMAN: Eman? EMAN AHMAD KHAMAS: Well, the reality is that it never happened in the history of Iraq for thousands, six thousands of years. It never happened, a civil war or these kind of distinctions. It is true that there are in Iraq, there are Kurds, there are Arabs and Sunnis and Shia and the Christians and many other minor religions and groups. But it never happened that we fight each other. No. At all. FAIZA AL-ARAJI: And a thing I said yesterday, in the history there is fighting between the regime and the Kurds or the regime against the Shia. But it doesn't mean it is civil war. It is something between, you know, for political reasons. But the media here is investing these actions to tell you another kind of stories. AMY GOODMAN: I saw you both yesterday at the Community Church in New York where you were speaking along with Medea Benjamin and Cindy Sheehan, talking about the conditions in Iraq. Eman, you have been documenting human rights abuses. EMAN AHMAD KHAMAS: Yes. AMY GOODMAN: You live in Baghdad? EMAN AHMAD KHAMAS: I live in Baghdad. AMY GOODMAN: What have you documented? EMAN AHMAD KHAMAS: Well, I worked mainly on the bombed cities, the refugee camps. I also worked on the missing, a very big issue in Iraq now, that I don't think people here have any idea about. I worked on the detainees. These are the things that I worked on. AMY GOODMAN: The missing? EMAN AHMAD KHAMAS: The missing. Yeah. AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean? EMAN AHMAD KHAMAS: Well, people are -- people disappear in Iraq. People are -- especially men -- arrested, and you don't hear anything about them later. For example, in the first – in the first era of the war, between March 20 until April 9, when the Iraqi state fall down, people disappeared. There are eyewitnesses that these people were taken by the American troops. Some of them may be killed. Some of them may be in jail. But now, they don't exist. AMY GOODMAN: Well, how do you find out? I mean, if you want to find out if someone has been jailed, what do you do? EMAN AHMAD KHAMAS: There are eyewitnesses in the place that he disappeared, and they say that “We saw him, he was injured and was taken in an American tank or vehicle,” or “He was taken,” simply. We go to the – and there is a very important point. There are prisoners injured who are released and they say that in our -- in our room and the place, we have this man and they give his description. Many things that no one else would know. Only the person who was with him. AMY GOODMAN: The American authorities in the U.S.-run prisons will not tell you? EMAN AHMAD KHAMAS: We go to the American military bases, to the prisons, and we ask about these people. They deny them. AMY GOODMAN: They deny that they are there? EMAN AHMAD KHAMAS: They deny they exist in that prison. For example, we have a story of a man. He was supposed to be in prison in Umm Qasr, you know, Camp Bucca in the south, deep in the south. AMY GOODMAN: Camp Bucca is named for a fireman who was killed 9/11 in New York. EMAN AHMAD KHAMAS: Yeah, but for Iraqis it is a very big prison. It is a camp where tens of thousands of Iraqis are arrested for three years now. So, people come from there, and they say, “We know this man, we know this man,” etc. And we go there. Sometimes even the American themselves, they say – the American authorities, the American officials, they say, yes, they put list of names. And when we go back, we ask about them, they say, “No, we didn't do that.” And we show them, I have a paper, I have a document, of one of these men. And now he's denied. I don't know the number of these people. The number is between 5,000 to 15,000. But I had a meeting with a general called General Brandenburg in the Ministry of Justice. And he said that he has records of that period. And he asked me to give him the names that I'm looking for. And I did. But when we had the meeting, and we had a date to go and to talk about these people, to give him the names, he did not show up, unfortunately. I'm still waiting for an answer. They said, in the Ministry of Justice, they said that he's changed. Now, there is another one, called Garner. But I didn't meet him yet. And I'm looking forward to meeting him and to give him the list of names about – and the stories of these people who disappeared. I mean, this is a very big tragedy in Iraq, because there are families, mothers, wives, children, who are waiting to hear about their loved ones, if they exist, if they are dead, if they are alive. They simply – they simply won't answer. That's all. All the answers. AMY GOODMAN: How do you even move around in Iraq? EMAN AHMAD KHAMAS: We can move around, but it is very risky. It is very dangerous, especially if you go to dangerous places. I mean, I go, for example, to the places that are bombed. And I have faced death many times. I was almost shot many times. But it is risky. But, I mean, we have to go. We have to see these people. We have to listen to them. AMY GOODMAN: Even to come here, that required you traveling the road to Amman? EMAN AHMAD KHAMAS: Yes. Yes. It was difficult. AMY GOODMAN: And you were issued the visa in Baghdad or in Amman. EMAN AHMAD KHAMAS: No, in Amman, we don't go to the Green Zone, we don’t go to the American embassy in Baghdad. It’s inside the Green Zone, and they do not issue visas. You have to go to Amman to apply first. And then, you have to go back to Baghdad to wait for two, three, six weeks, and then you are sent an email or you hear from them and then you go back and you get the visa, if it is granted. So, this is how it works. AMY GOODMAN: Faiza Al-Araji, you are also a civil engineer. What about the so-called reconstruction of Iraq? We’ve last heard that in the upcoming budget, the only money that has been requested for reconstruction now is for prisons. FAIZA AL-ARAJI: Yeah. We have heard a lot of stories about reconstruction during the six months or the first year after the war. And we were living inside Baghdad and watching for them, as an example, for the campaign of maintenance of the schools. We have heard about huge budget for the contractors from Bechtel or other American companies. But the reality on the ground that the final thing that they paid it for subcontract and subcontract, then – and a subcontract, a Iraqi one, he got it for $2,000 for each school just to put painting and to maintain the broken glasses. This is the only thing they have done. But maybe they are sending you the message or the story that we put new furniture and we put the new computers and everything was fancy. No, this is not the truth. The reality is something very different, you know? I have to see a lot of our – to hear about - because I'm engineer, I am in touch with engineers and with contractors. The contractors are not qualified people. If you – I am working with water treatment systems, and the people who are coming with their papers of the specification for the water treatment package for a village or a town, he don't know what is written in the paper. Why should they give him the contract? Why should they give him the priority? Because he is a friend of them. Because he is working in the -- maybe in the military bases, building for the American military force. So they trust him. And they give him the contract. He is ignorant. He don’t know what is going on, what is inside the paper and he -- but they give him a huge amount of money. And when he come to ask me about the prices, I can't give him, but I can understand he got a big budget for this small piece. And by the time I can understand there is a lot of money have been spent for the big construction of Iraq. Something like this. But the reality is something on the ground, that is something is like this. And you buy something in this budget, but you are the price -- the real price is this thing. So you can see the money of the Iraqis have been disappeared. This is the kind of – if we are talking about the reconstruction and the corruption in the ministries and everywhere, it is a familiar story now. And what about the corruption of the billions of dollars of Iraqi people who have been out of the banks? AMY GOODMAN: We are going to end by asking what you think the solution is, to both of you. What's the solution? FAIZA AL-ARAJI: What's the solution? What's the solution, my dear? There is chaos. If you turn your face from this direction, from – there is a lot of problems in Iraq. How could you -- can imagine to start? What is the first step to stop all of this? The first step is, help the Iraqis to have national unity government, to make a kind of reconciliation between them after the last election, to get a good government, a real government which is – who us representative of the Iraqi people. This is step number one. Step number two, train -- give training for the police Iraqi men and for the soldiers to help their people, not to arrest them and kill them and to campaign or to move with the American occupation force to kill Iraqi people. We need something new, strong, to trust them. And then the other step, that we can ask the troops to go out, to pull out the troops from Iraq. AMY GOODMAN: Eman Khamas, do you think that U.S. troops should leave immediately? EMAN AHMAD KHAMAS: Yes. The occupation should end immediately. AMY GOODMAN: What would happen then? EMAN AHMAD KHAMAS: What would happen? Iraq would be free, would be really liberated. Iraq is now occupied. AMY GOODMAN: The press describes it as it would immediately descend into civil war. EMAN AHMAD KHAMAS: No. I mean, it’s not going to be like that. I mean, you have to plan it in a way that, you know, guarantee that there will be no civil war, as you said. There is the U.N., there is the Security Council, there are the peacekeeping troops. There are many things that they can work out to, you know, follow this security vacuum, so that it wouldn’t, as you say, go into civil war. But the occupation should end immediately. It’s something wrong. It’s wrong for the Iraqis, for the Americans, for the world, for peace, for the international law. Everything. It’s wrong. It has to end now. Immediately. And then – and we Iraqis, we can work things out. We are capable of that. And if we kill each other, it’s our problem. It’s not the American’s problem. But we -- I'm sure that we are capable of taking care of ourselves. AMY GOODMAN: We will touch base as you travel around the country in this International Women's Month, and I thank you very much for being with us. EMAN AHMAD KHAMAS: Thank you. FAIZA AL-ARAJI: Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: Hopefully, the two other women who are supposed to be a part of your tour will also eventually make it here. I hear Mother's Day is now their goal. Well, we have been speaking with Faiza Al-Araji, who is a civil engineer and blogger; her blog AfamilyInBaghdad.blogspot.com, and we will link to it at DemocracyNow.org, and Eman Ahmad Khamas, who is a journalist, translator, and activist, a member of the Women's Will organization. ---- 'Peace Mom' Still Campaigning Against War 'Peace Mom' Sheehan Has Gone From Grieving Mother to Widely Recognized Anti-War Campaigner By MICHELLE LOCKE 3/6/06 Associated Press http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=1689654 SAN FRANCISCO - Lunching in the Mission District in a dark skirt, black cardigan and unfussy hairdo, Cindy Sheehan looks every bit the anonymous suburban mom she was not long ago. That doesn't deter a man who stops at her table to ask for a snapshot and give a word of encouragement as a fellow war protester. "I remember people calling me a leftist," he tells her. "You got to ignore that." In the months since she captured national attention with her August vigil outside President Bush's Texas ranch, Sheehan has gone from grieving mother to widely recognized anti-war campaigner. "She somehow managed to step out of the shadows and make her voice heard," says Michael Nagler, a University of California, Berkeley, professor and founder of the campus' Peace and Conflict Studies program. She also has her share of critics, some charging she's been co-opted by the liberal groups that have helped her. Her recent meeting with Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's leftist president, raised eyebrows, as have her postings on liberal Web sites like that run by "Fahrenheit 911" filmmaker Michael Moore. "Cindy Sheehan had one glorious shining moment and she took advantage of it and the peace movement took advantage of her as it created the attention that the movement hadn't had previously," says Stephen Hess, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University. Sheehan, 48, seems to be just about everywhere on her campaign that started with the death of her 24-year-old son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq two years ago this April. She was arrested during Bush's State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt that referred to the number of troops killed in Iraq then: "2245 Dead. How many more?" Weeks later, she held a San Francisco news conference to announce that she wouldn't challenge Sen. Dianne Feinstein. This month she and REM singer Michael Stipe will headline a New York concert, "Bring 'Em Home Now!" and at Easter it's off to Texas for another vigil outside the Bush ranch. "She's been a kind of a lightning rod for the anti-war effort and it's because of the essential truth of her position: She's an aggrieved mother; that gives her tremendous power," says Nagler. Some think Sheehan's overstayed her time in the spotlight. "If she had just gone home I think she would have been remembered importantly, but she didn't just go home," says Hess. Her mission has come at a cost. She and her husband, Patrick, split up in the aftermath of their son's death. He has made no public comment Sheehan insists that no one is exploiting her, saying she has her own agenda. "I really have to stay focused every day on my mission. That's bringing the troops home. This war's illegal and immoral and my son should be alive and nobody else should be dying," she says. And she says she doesn't spend time thinking about her critics. "It's the people who say I'm their hero who respect me and what I'm doing they're the ones who I feel so much pressure to not disappoint." Still liable to tear up when talking about her son, she says her issue is right and wrong, not left and right. She points out that she has criticized Democrats, including Feinstein, for their war stance and has no problem supporting Republicans who oppose the war. She is co-founder of the nonprofit Gold Star Families for Peace, wrote a book "Not One More Mother's Child," and is working on another. She gets help from groups including CODEPINK, a national woman's peace group, and Veterans for Peace. Her own operation is small herself, her sister and someone who helps out from time to time answering e-mail. Bill Mitchell, co-founder of Gold Star Families and a fellow war protester, understands better than most where Sheehan is coming from. His son Mike, an Army sergeant, was killed on the same day as Casey Sheehan. "I'm amazed at what she has done and how she's taken her position and how she's been out there and making contacts and how she go, go, goes," he says. "Cindy is real. I read some of this stuff that people write about her and they really don't know anything about Cindy." Mitchell describes himself and Sheehan as "just common, average Americans." "What we do is keep our pain out there in front of the American public," he says. "I think our lives are very comfortable here; most Americans are not affected by the war. But there are some of us who have been affected, dramatically affected." ---- Peace activist Sheehan arrested in NY protest March 6th, 2006 (Reuters) http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=6105 NEW YORK - Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist whose son was killed in the Iraq war, was arrested with three other protesters in New York on Monday after a rally with women from Iraq. Sheehan became a central figure in the U.S. anti-war movement last summer after she camped outside President George W. Bush's Texas ranch and has been arrested at least two other times at protests. On Monday, she had joined a delegation of women from Iraq at the rally at the United Nations, urging the United Nations to help prevent civil war in Iraq. About 20 protesters went to the U.S. mission to the United Nations to deliver a petition with 60,000 signatures seeking an end to the war. Nobody from the mission received them so Sheehan and three other American women sat down in front of the building, refused to leave, and were arrested. A police spokesman said they were expected to be released later on Monday. The Iraqi women plan to deliver a petition to the White House on Wednesday. Earlier they held a news conference at U.N. headquarters calling for the United States to withdraw its forces. Entisar Mohammad Ariabi, a pharmacist at Baghdad's Yarmook Teaching Hospital, wept as she told reporters of the hardships experienced by Iraqi women. "U.S. occupation has destroyed our country, made it into a prison," she said. "Schools are bombed, hospitals are bombed." "We thank you, Mr. Bush, for liberating our country from Saddam. But now, go out! Please go out!" she said. (Additional reporting by Irwin Arieff)