NucNews April 23, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety Revealed: fears over 'radioactive' food threat By Rob Edwards Environment Editor UK Sunday Herald - 23 April 2006 http://www.sundayherald.com/55327 PLANS to increase emissions of radioactive waste from Scotland’s two nuclear power stations would contaminate food in breach of safety limits, the government’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) has warned. The Sunday Herald can reveal that any escalation of releases of radioactive gases from the Hunterston nuclear station in North Ayrshire would be “unacceptable” to the food safety watchdog. Children who eat locally produced food could receive radiation doses above the recommended limit, it said. The FSA also pointed out that proposed new aerial emissions from the Torness nuclear plant in East Lothian could cause a problem to crops. Peas, beans and other vegetables grown nearby could be polluted in excess of European radiation safety levels, it said. The revelations come amidst a rising crescendo of arguments over the Prime Minister Tony Blair’s desire to build new nuclear power stations. A flurry of pro and anti-nuclear campaigns are being launched this week to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the world’s worst nuclear accident, at Chernobyl in Ukraine. The international consensus among scientists is that exposure to even the tiniest amounts of radioactivity can increase the risk of cancer. Radiation can damage human DNA and trigger changes that lead over years to the growth of tumours. That is why health and regulatory agencies worldwide are now working to minimise public exposure to radiation. Despite this, the company that runs Hunterston and Torness, British Energy, submitted plans for major increases in some of its emissions. The company applied to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) for a 50% increase in the amount of the radioactive gas, carbon-14, that Hunterston is allowed to discharge into the atmosphere. This is necessary, British Energy said, because carbon-14 builds up in reactors as they age. The gas is created as radiation bombards the blocks of graphite that surround the reactor core. But in a letter obtained by the Sunday Herald, the increase has been rejected by the FSA. “We have considered the proposed limits that British Energy has requested and believe that these will lead to unacceptable levels of radioactivity in food,” wrote the agency’s scientific advisor Neil Leitch. This is because, an FSA spokeswoman explained, it may be possible for an infant consuming locally produced foods to receive a radiation dose more than 20% above the “constraint” recommended by government radiation scientists. Dr Ian Fairlie, an independent radiation consultant who used to advise Sepa, argued that a close watch had to be kept on carbon-14, which would persist for thousands of years and had the ability to bind organically with cells and organs in the human body. He said: “Any advice by the FSA that emissions could lead to radiation dose limits being breached must be viewed with concern. No matter how small the doses are there is always some level of risk.” At Torness, the FSA said that releases during maintenance twice every three years under the new proposals could contaminate legumes and leafy green vegetables planted nearby. On the worst assumptions, contamination by another radioactive gas, sulphur-35, could exceed the “intervention levels” adopted by the European Union for nuclear accidents. “The prospect of children eating food contaminated in breach of radiation safety limits is unthinkable,” said Pete Roche, a consultant to Greenpeace. “It is not something that any regulator or any government should tolerate.” British Energy’s proposed emission limits for Torness have also been criticised by another government watchdog, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The limits for carbon-14 and sulphur-35 leave “little or no headroom” above projected emissions, according to the HSE’s principal nuclear inspector, Ron Cooper. “HSE considers that this lack of headroom may have safety implications by putting the power station operators under unnecessary pressure,” he said. “It may also lead to the additional accumulation of radioactive wastes on the site.” The Scottish Executive drew attention to “issues” concerning the proposed treatment of waste resins from Torness. Their early disposal could lead to discharges to the environment which raised a “fundamental principle” for Sepa to consider, it said. British Energy is also seeking permission for large increases in the amount of contaminated solvents, paints and batteries it is permitted to send to be burnt in an incinerator at Hythe, near Southampton. And the company wants similar hikes in the amounts of radioactive waste it’s allowed to disposed at the Drigg disposal site near Sellafield in Cumbria. British Energy claimed that most of its discharge authorisations would be reduced. “We share Sepa’s aims to seek the best environmental outcomes,” said a company spokeswoman. “We are also carrying out our own consultation with community stakeholders at both sites to outline why and by how much we are requesting to decrease – and in a minority of cases to increase – authorisation limits.” Byron Tilly, from Sepa’s radioactive team, said: “We will not consider how to deal with British Energy’s request until we have received the response to the consultation.” The consultation is due to end on June 2. This week, the Scottish Greens and Friends of the Earth Scotland will be separately launching new campaigns against nuclear power. On Monday, the CBI business lobby will be calling for a programme of new nuclear stations. On Thursday, the government’s Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is expected to issue its long-awaited draft recommendations on how to deal with Britain’s nuclear waste. It is likely to suggest that the waste be buried in a hole, but it will not say where the hole should be. Among a welter of other initiatives is a new website aimed at providing details of pro-nuclear campaigners. Called nuclearspin.org, it details the affiliations of prominent nuclear enthusiasts. ---- Crumbling Chernobyl Shelter Poses Danger by Mara D. Bellaby Sunday, April 23, 2006 by the Associated Press http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0423-04.htm Chernobyl's coffin is cracking. Birds and rainwater have gotten inside the steel-and-concrete shelter hastily built over the reactor that blew up in 1986, and officials worry about what is getting out. The "sarcophagus" over reactor No. 4 is reaching the end of its life span. A multinational $1.1 billion project to build a new shelter — a giant steel arch designed to last 100 years — is still on the drawing board. "Twenty years have already passed since the accident, but the risks and the hazards posed by the reactor are still there," said Yulia Marusych, a spokeswoman for the power station. The sarcophagus of nearly 700,000 tons of steel and 400,000 tons of concrete was hastily built to seal in an estimated 200-ton mix of radioactive fuel and materials like concrete and sand that fused when the explosion spiked temperatures to 1,800 degrees inside. No one knows exactly how much radioactive fuel remains since only 25 percent of the reactor is accessible. Some estimate it all was discharged during the 10 days when the reactor spewed out its insides. Others counter that as much as 90 percent is still there. Sensors constantly check for signs of new reactions taking place. "Could it begin again? It would need certain conditions and we can say that today those conditions do not exist," Marusych said. "But the chance that a chain reaction could be triggered is not zero. The danger remains." Didier Louvat, a radiation waste expert with the International Atomic Energy Agency who studies Chernobyl closely, sees no reason for alarm — "The situation is stable ... at the moment the conditions are not a matter for concern." Some accuse the Ukrainian government of playing up the dangers to get more international aid for the new shelter. But Yuriy Andreyev, head of the Chernobyl Union, an advocacy group, accused the government of not doing enough. He said water accumulating under the reactor is highly irradiated and could leak into the region's groundwater. Authorities said the priority now is stabilizing the sarcophagus. The roof is not sealed properly. The water inside is weakening the concrete and metal. The shelter's original west wall is leaning precariously. While a collapse would be unlikely to spark another explosion, it could release a huge burst of poisonous radioactive dust. For now, while talks continue on who will build the new shelter, construction crews are working to shore up the aging sarcophagus. They have to work in 20-minute shifts to minimize exposure to radiation. "About the danger? Well, everybody knows where he works and everybody realizes the real hazards, the real risks of working here," said Yuriy Tatarchuk, a Chernobyl official. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- arkansas Nuclear Energy and Oil Refineries 04/23/06 NWAPolitics http://www.nwapolitics.com/blog/index.php?blog=7&title=nuclear_energy_and_oil_refineries&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 Once again, Asa Hutchinson is the candidate talking ideas. You can say what you want about the man, but he really is cranking out thoughtful ideas about how Arkansas can be a better place to live and a better place to make a buck. Seriously, when was the last time we heard anyone, let alone the governor or a gubernatorial candidate, talking about bringing a new nuclear plant or an oil refinery to Arkansas? You can't name the last time. In Sunday morning's Business Section of The Morning News, Asa discussed just that: nuclear power and refining oil in Arkansas. (A link to the article would have been provided here, but as of 11pm Sunday night, it was not available on their site.) Beebe shrugged off the discussion of the idea by stating that Asa's pitch was "pretty curious." Beebe's statement that Arkansas should be #1 in the nation when it comes to "renewable fuels" is a lofty goal. But, he believes it attainable since "we have the technology, we have the markets and we have the fuel sources." We do? Then why aren't they being used? The last time McClave bought fuel he paid $2.75 a gallon. No ethanol available there. Beebe suggests building an ethanol refinery instead of an oil refinery. Wonder why that hasn't been done yet? Because, at least for now, it is not economically viable to do so. If it were, someone would have done it, since we have the basic resources to make that happen. While a nuclear power plant or an oil refinery seem a tall order, why not talk about it? We know the nuclear power option is attainable; it's been done once already. With Murphy Oil already calling Arkansas home, the oil refinery doesn't seem so farfetched an option, either. What is awesome about this debate is that it brings a new face to the political rhetoric in Arkansas. For once, we are talking novel ideas. Ideas that stretch us - that push us. Arkansas deserves the very best and can attain just about any stature she wishes. It will, however, take ideas; fresh, new ideas. And for now, they are being provided by Asa Hutchinson. -------- kentucky For Earth Day, an open house at nuclear dump By Jim Warren LEXINGTON KY HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER Sun, Apr. 23, 2006 http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/14408528.htm?source=syn MAXEY FLATS - Nearly 40 years ago Herbert Jolly and other farmers and landowners organized the environmental fight that ultimately led to the closing of the leaking Maxey Flats nuclear waste site in Fleming County. Yesterday, Jolly and some of the other original Maxey Flats concerned citizens celebrated Earth Day by revisiting the dump site during a public open house organized by state environmental officials to show off the progress they've made in cleaning up what once was one of the nation's most infamous environmental messes. "Things have changed; it looks a lot better today," Jolly said, surveying the seemingly endless expanse of black, plastic-like geomembrane liner that covers Maxey Flats' 55-acre restricted area, where about 4.7 million cubic feet of radioactive wastes were buried starting in 1963. The liner is designed to keep rainwater out of the trenches where the waste is stored, preventing a repeat of the contaminated-water leaks of the early 1970s that first indicated serious problems at Maxey Flats. The site closed in 1977. Now, environmental officials say that with improvements made over the past decade or so, Maxey Flats is safe and getting safer. They're even looking for ways of reusing it one day, maybe as a wildlife management area. But after living with the problem so long, Herbert Jolly isn't sure the danger is over. "I don't think I'll ever be totally convinced," he said yesterday. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Maxey Flats opened in 1963, authorized by state legislators in hopes of helping Kentucky get in on the ground floor of the then-growing nuclear disposal industry. Radioactive waste from laboratories all over the country came to Maxey Flats. In addition to toxic stuff like plutonium, enriched uranium, and tritium, there was just plain junk -- contaminated tools, clothing and furniture. Some of it was deadly. Early disposal methods were crude. At Maxey Flats, crews basically dug deep trenches, dumped in steel drums and cardboard boxes of waste, and filled the trenches with dirt. Rainwater entered the trenches. Environmental monitoring in the early 1970s indicated that contaminated water might be leaking off site. Fearful local citizens already were clamoring to have the place closed. Maxey Flats eventually would generate numerous studies, cost millions of dollars and be featured in network TV documentaries. Those days are over, said Scott Wilburn, who manages Maxey Flats for the Kentucky Division of Waste Management. Corrective steps completed in 2003 have brought most problems at the site under control, he said yesterday. The steps include installation of the geomembrane liner, which directs rainwater into a detention basin to be tested for radioactivity before it is released into a nearby creek. Contaminated water was pumped out of the storage trenches, solidified with concrete and buried on site. Automatic monitoring equipment samples surface water at multiple locations around the site every six hours for testing. A 550-acre "buffer zone" has been added around the perimeter of the site to separate it from the surrounding farms and homes. No contaminated water is found outside Maxey Flats' restricted area, except for two springs in the buffer zone where low levels have been detected, said Wesley Turner, a geologist with the state Department of Environmental Protection. It's not perfect, but it's a major improvement, he said. "We've taken a really bad situation and turned it into a manageable situation," Turner said. If work continues on schedule, a permanent "cap" over the site is planned for sometime around 2012. According to Turner, it would consist of multiple layers of liner and soil, with grass sown on the surface. Even so, the stuff buried at Maxey Flats will remain radioactive for hundreds of years. Residents who visited the site yesterday seemed pleased with what they saw and hopeful for the future. But many, like Pauline and Willie Scaggs, couldn't forget the old days when they battled to get Maxey Flats closed. The Scaggs once lived next to the site, but their farm was bought by the state in the mid-1990s for the buffer zone around the site. "We knew something wasn't right when they would come by and check your well water every week, but they wouldn't say why," Pauline Scaggs said. Herbert Jolly credited John P. Hayes, now deceased, with really starting the fight against Maxey Flats in the late 1960s. "John P. came into the store in Hillsboro one day and said, 'They're burying stuff up at Maxey Flats that's going to kill all of us,'" Jolly recalled. "Everybody laughed at him, but he kept on until he closed it." Jolly also remembered the day they went to see then Gov. Julian Carroll in Frankfort, and put a jug of water from Maxey Flats on his desk. "I said, 'This is what people are drinking down there,'" Jolly recalled. "John P. finally found this lab in Minnesota that would test our water samples. And as soon as they tested them, they called back here wanting to know where we got samples with readings as high as that. That's what got it going." -------- massachusetts Annual check says Pilgrim OK By Robert Knox, Boston Globe Correspondent | April 23, 2006 http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/04/23/annual_check_says_pilgrim_ok/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+City%2FRegion+News The Pilgrim nuclear power plant received high marks for operational safety by federal overseers at its annual checkup last week. The plant received a ''green" rating -- indicating the lowest number of safety concerns -- in six of seven areas. Information on the seventh area, physical protection safeguards, is no longer released to the public. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials reported an overall improvement in reactor performance, citing only a few low-level concerns. Inspectors monitored corrective actions taken last year as a result of a more significant problem -- the discovery of an inattentive control room operator -- and found them satisfactory. Pilgrim's owner, Entergy Corp., noted its efforts to improve employee performance, reduce the possibility of problems caused by human error, and reduce a backlog of ''elective maintenance" projects. ''Our goal is to enhance the culture of the station," said Steve Bethay, Pilgrim's director of nuclear safety. He said performance standards were improving throughout the nuclear power industry. ''The bar is rising." But a critic of the NRC contended that inspectors were able to give Pilgrim high marks because the commission has lowered performance standards in recent years. ''It's all a fiction," said Mary Lampert, chairwoman of the Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee, the town's advisory panel on nuclear matters, as well as a vocal Pilgrim critic. Lampert said assessments of Pilgrim's emergency planning and radiation monitoring were ''made to work" by reducing requirements. For example, emergency evacuation plans were made acceptable by reducing the area that residents were expected to evacuate from a 10-mile zone to 2 miles, she said. She also asserted that widespread public concern for the plant's safety from terrorism has not been allayed. ''The NRC is lowering the bar," she declared. NRC officials disputed that contention. Branch chief Cliff Anderson said, ''The NRC does not sit back in a lax mode." He also said plant security standards have been upgraded ''behind the scenes." While Entergy's desire to extend the plant's license for 20 years has caused Plymouth officials to reexamine their relationship to the plant and has drawn opposition from area residents, the NRC's reactor oversight program focuses on the plant's present, not its future. The annual assessment meeting gave regulators an opportunity to demonstrate that comprehensive oversight of the nuclear reactor on Plymouth's Manomet shoreline takes place year-round. Two resident inspectors are assigned full time to Pilgrim. Their work was backed up last year by 11 regional inspections and one inspection by a larger team of specialists. Inspections of some systems took place last year when the plant went out of service to refuel. Bill Raymond, the NRC's senior resident inspector at Pilgrim, said a crack was found in a small part of one fuel rod cluster out of more than 300. The reactor's spent fuel rods are stored in water and the perforation posed no threat to public safety, Raymond said. He also said that while no testing for leaks of radioactive water takes place at Pilgrim, the possibility poses no danger to people because the water discharged into the bay would not enter public drinking supplies. He said the amount of contamination in the leaked water found at other nuclear plants was very small. David Lew, NRC's deputy director for the region, said that while information about how plants are being protected from terrorism could not be made public, the NRC has made exhaustive analysis of ''aircraft events" and concluded that the probability of a nuclear reactor being harmed was very low. Lew also said that in the event of an accident, radiation would be measured by Pilgrim and state officials off site to allow for precise and ''nuanced" public advisories. Robert Knox can be reached at rc.knox@gmail.com. -------- pennsylvania Frustrated Epstein says he won't deal with NRC anymore Sunday, April 23, 2006 BY GARRY LENTON Of The Patriot-News http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/114578413010600.xml&coll=1 Since the partial meltdown of the Unit 2 reactor at Three Mile Island 27 years ago, Eric Epstein has been an audible voice for the public in dealing with federal nuclear regulators. No more. Earlier this month, a disgusted Epstein notified the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that he would no longer work with the agency. Epstein, chairman of the watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert, said the NRC's refusal to investigate concerns that day-care centers and nursery schools were not included in state nuclear emergency plans prompted him to pull away. Epstein and Larry Christian, of New Cumberland, asked the NRC to review the state's evacuation plans three years ago. Since then the two have filed a petition and an allegation with the NRC. All were denied. "The Commission's responses to our requests to repair, rework and improve special needs emergency planning at TMI and Peach Bottom have been evasive at best, and negligent at worst," Epstein wrote in a letter to the agency. "We've tried to work with the system to make the plans better and we've been rebuffed at every corner," Epstein said. "I'm just absolutely exhausted." TMI Alert will now prepare to take the NRC to federal court, Epstein announced. NRC spokeswoman Diane Screnci said the agency had no comment on Epstein's letter. David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said TMI Alert's move was a signal that the relationship between the NRC and public interest groups was breaking down. "The reason we have emergency planning [around nuclear plants] today is because of Three Mile Island," he said. "If the group that is there to deal with emergency planning around TMI feels disenfranchised, there is something wrong." GARRY LENTON: 255-8264 or glenton@patriot-news.com -------- south carolina More SRS troubles Published: Sunday, April 23, 2006 Greenville News http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006604230305 There's yet another study casting a shadow on the Savannah River Site. An independent panel of scientists reported "serious reservations" about the cleanup of radioactive waste at the site, located near Aiken. The team of scientists, who studied three national nuclear sites, was most concerned about cleanup efforts at SRS. "There are a lot of pressures to do things in the near term at Savannah River," said Micah Lowenthal, the director of the study done by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academies of Science. "The committee is concerned the schedule-oriented approach can sometimes lead to decisions that you wouldn't make under more ideal circumstances." Millions of gallons of highly toxic sludge were created at SRS as a result of plutonium production for atomic weapons during World War II and the Cold War. The report comes on the heels of other studies identifying problems and wasteful spending at SRS. Recently, an SRS Citizens Advisory Board said that a two-year delay of a nuclear waste processing facility at the site could cost taxpayers $1 billion. Meanwhile, a separate audit found that another SRS project would cost $2.5 billion more than the $1 billion originally expected. That latter project involves the conversion of 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium into fuel for commercial reactors. South Carolina's congressional delegation needs to get a handle on SRS's troubles. This is one issue on which all of the state's federal lawmakers should be able to unite -- working together to make SRS less wasteful, more efficient and more accountable. -------- us nuc waste New uranium container can take a licking Design to be used by Y-12 withstands series of punishing tests By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com April 23, 2006 Knoxville News Sentinel (TN) http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_4644000,00.html OAK RIDGE - The Y-12 nuclear weapons plant is purchasing 500 new-age containers for shipping highly enriched uranium, with plans to begin using them this fall. Y-12 engineers designed the ES-3100 container, which reportedly adds safety and security features while maximizing the amount of fissile material - up to 33 kilograms of U-235 - that can be transported in a single container. The ES-3100 will replace the 6M container, which has been the "workhorse" for Y-12 and other nuclear facilities for more than 20 years but no longer meets all safety regulations. The U.S. Department of Transportation is terminating use of the 6M by 2008. Accurate Machine Product Co. in Johnson City is manufacturing the new containers, said Jeff Arbital, the program manager at Y-12. The cost is about $5,000 per container, he said. The company previously manufactured 14 prototypes, using the Y-12 design, and those ES-3100 containers were used in various tests to meet U.S. and international regulations, Arbital said. A container was dropped from a crane, immersed in water under pressure, and placed inside a steel-mill furnace at 1,475 degrees Fahrenheit for 30 minutes. The ES-3100 also survived puncture drills and having a 1,100-pound steel plate dropped on it from a height of 30 feet. According to the Y-12 Report, a quarterly publication, "The new container passed all test conditions with flying colors, leaving the inner cavity of the drum completely unscathed." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission certified the new container April 7 and the Department of Transportation is expected to issue a "certificate of competent authority," Arbital said. The Y-12 official said the ES-3100 would not be used for transportation of actual warhead components - only for bulk quantities of enriched uranium or other fissile materials, such as plutonium. But Arbital emphasized that transportation of highly enriched uranium is an essential part of efforts to downsize the U.S. arsenal of nuclear weapons. As old weapons are taken apart and fissile materials become surplus, the uranium must be moved to other sites to be "downblended" to remove its weapons usefulness or converted into fuel for nuclear reactors, he said. "The disposition of HEU is going to go on until maybe 2020, and we'd have trouble shipping materials without (the ES-3100)," Arbital said. "This allows that mission to continue with increasing efficiency." The new Y-12 container will hold up to 45 kilograms of uranium in total weight, with as much as 33 kilograms of U-235 - the fissionable isotope of uranium. That's double the mass allowed in the currently used containers, he said. Walter North, who headed the engineering group that designed the ES-3100, said the inner containment vessel was fabricated from a single billet of stainless steel. The seamless fabrication saves some money because welds don't have to be inspected, and it's also stronger, North said. Arbital said the inner sleeve contains a neutron-absorbing material that enhances the nuclear safety and helps prevent the fissile material from reaching criticality. That allowed Y-12's design engineers "to push the envelope quite a bit" and increase the amount of uranium that could be loaded, he said. Eventually, the new ES-3100 will be licensed for air transportation, and that could open up use of the containers for non-proliferation projects internationally. Other nuclear sites in the U.S. Department of Energy's weapons production complex may purchase containers of the new design or borrow those in the Y-12 inventory, Arbital said. Senior Writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. -------- POLITICS -------- us politics Iraq one of 'worst disasters' of US foreign policy: Albright Sun Apr 23, 2006 WASHINGTON (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060423/pl_afp/usiraqalbright Invading Iraq is likely to go down as one of the worst US foreign policy blunders ever, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said in an interview. The former top US diplomat told the New York Times that Iraq's deposed leader Saddam Hussein "was horrible. But I did not think he was an imminent threat to the United States. "You can't go to war with everybody you dislike," Albright continued. "I think Iraq may end up being one of the worst disasters in American foreign policy." Albright, who served under President Bill Clinton, said US foreign policy mistakes under President George W. Bush have left her feeling "sick" about America's current status in global affairs. "A lot of the things that we worked on for eight years have unraveled. It is very hard," she told the Times. "What really troubles me is that democracy is getting a bad name because it is identified with imposition and occupation," she added. "I'm for democracy, but imposing democracy is an oxymoron. People have to choose democracy, and it has to come up from below." -------- OTHER -------- environment Pachauri: Climate Approaching Point of "No Return" Global Warming Approaching Point of No Return, Warns Leading Climate Expert The Independent (U.K.), Jan. 23, 2005 http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=603752 http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5056&method=full http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0123-01.htm Global warning has already hit the danger point that international attempts to curb it are designed to avoid, according to the world's top climate watchdog. Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told an international conference attended by 114 governments in Mauritius this month that he personally believes that the world has "already reached the level of dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" and called for immediate and "very deep" cuts in the pollution if humanity is to "survive". His comments rocked the Bush administration - which immediately tried to slap him down - not least because it put him in his post after Exxon, the major oil company most opposed to international action on global warming, complained that his predecessor was too "aggressive" on the issue. A memorandum from Exxon to the White House in early 2001 specifically asked it to get the previous chairman, Dr Robert Watson, the chief scientist of the World Bank, "replaced at the request of the US". The Bush administration then lobbied other countries in favor of Dr Pachauri - whom the former vice-president Al Gore called the "let's drag our feet" candidate, and got him elected to replace Dr Watson, a British-born naturalized American, who had repeatedly called for urgent action. But this month, at a conference of Small Island Developing States on the Indian Ocean island, the new chairman, a former head of India's Tata Energy Research Institute, himself issued what top United Nations officials described as a "very courageous" challenge. He told delegates: "Climate change is for real. We have just a small window of opportunity and it is closing rather rapidly. There is not a moment to lose." Afterwards he told The Independent on Sunday that widespread dying of coral reefs, and rapid melting of ice in the Arctic, had driven him to the conclusion that the danger point the IPCC had been set up to avoid had already been reached. Reefs throughout the world are perishing as the seas warm up: as water temperatures rise, they lose their colors and turn a ghostly white. Partly as a result, up to a quarter of the world's corals have been destroyed. And in November, a multi-year study by 300 scientists concluded that the Arctic was warming twice as fast as the rest of the world and that its ice-cap had shrunk by up to 20 per cent in the past three decades. The ice is also 40 per cent thinner than it was in the 1970s and is expected to disappear altogether by 2070. And while Dr Pachauri was speaking parts of the Arctic were having a January "heatwave", with temperatures eight to nine degrees centigrade higher than normal. He also cited alarming measurements, first reported in The Independent on Sunday, showing that levels of carbon dioxide (the main cause of global warming) have leapt abruptly over the past two years, suggesting that climate change may be accelerating out of control. He added that, because of inertia built into the Earth's natural systems, the world was now only experiencing the result of pollution emitted in the 1960s, and much greater effects would occur as the increased pollution of later decades worked its way through. He concluded: "We are risking the ability of the human race to survive."