NucNews May 24, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR Fusion reactor work gets go-ahead The agreement gives the go-ahead for work to start Wednesday, 24 May 2006 BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5012638.stm Seven international parties involved in an experimental nuclear fusion reactor project have initialled a 10bn-euro (£6.8bn) agreement on the plan. The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (Iter) will be the most expensive joint scientific project after the International Space Station. Wednesday's agreement in Brussels gives the go-ahead for practical work on the project to start. Fusion taps energy from reactions like those that power the Sun. The seven-party consortium, which includes the European Union, the US, Japan, China, Russia and others, agreed last year to build Iter in Cadarache, in the southern French region of Provence. Cleaner energy The parties say fusion will lead to a cheaper, safer, cleaner and endless energy resource in the years ahead. "We represent more than half of the world's population, and recognise that by working together today we stand a much better chance of tackling the challenges of tomorrow, so energy is an issue of concern for all of us," said EU science and research commissioner, Janez Potocnik, after the ceremony. He said that the participants would aim to ratify their agreement before the end of the year so construction on the facility could start in 2007. Officials said the experimental reactor would take about eight years to build. The EU is to foot about 50% of the cost to build the experimental reactor. If all goes well with the experimental reactor, officials hope to set up a demonstration power plant at Cadarache by 2040. In a fusion reaction, energy is produced when light atoms - the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium - are fused together to form heavier atoms. To use controlled fusion reactions on Earth as an energy source, it is necessary to heat a gas to temperatures exceeding 100 million Celsius - many times hotter than the centre of the Sun. The technical requirements to do this, which scientists have spent decades developing, are immense; but the rewards, if Iter can be made to work successfully, are extremely attractive. Investment costs One kilogram of fusion fuel would produce the same amount of energy as 10,000,000kg of fossil fuel. Fusion does produce radioactive waste but not the volumes of long-term high-level radiotoxic materials that have so burdened nuclear fission. Officials project that 10-20% of the world's energy could come from fusion by the end of the century. However, environmental groups have criticised the project, saying there was no guarantee that the billions of euros would result in a commercially viable energy source. "Investment in energy efficiency and renewables is the only reliable way to guarantee energy security," said Silvia Hermann, from Friends of the Earth Europe. "Giving billions of euros to a single nuclear project that is so far from reality is ill judged and irresponsible." The European Commission said the investment costs were justified, explaining that the technology used in fusion reactor plants would be "inherently safe, with no possibility of meltdown, or runaway reactions." The Cadarache site is also expected to boost Europe's role in developing new technologies and is likely to create about 10,000 jobs. The consortium had been divided over where to put the test reactor, and competition was intense. Russia, China and the European Union wanted it at Cadarache; while Japan, the US and South Korea wanted the facility built at Rokkasho in northern Japan. Japan withdrew its bid after agreeing to a bigger role in research and operations. The Cadarache site lies about 60km (37 miles) inland from Marseille, and has been a nuclear research centre ever since President Charles de Gaulle launched France's atomic energy programme in 1959. ITER - NUCLEAR FUSION PROJECT Project estimated to cost 10bn euros and will run for 35 years It will produce the first sustained fusion reactions Final stage before full prototype of commercial reactor is built ---- Nations Agree to Build Fusion Reactor The Associated Press By CONSTANT BRAND May 24, 2006 http://www.topix.net/content/ap/3922505583062814424733569748850864959272 Investment in energy efficiency and renewables is the only reliable way to guarantee energy security The European Union, the United States, Japan, China, Russia and others initialed a $12.8 billion agreement Wednesday to build an experimental fusion project they hope will lead to a cheaper, safer, cleaner and endless source of energy. The seven-party consortium, which also includes India and South Korea, agreed last year to build the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER, in Cadarache, in the southern French region of Provence. The consortium hopes to develop the new technology saying it will help move away from the global dependency on fossil fuels and nuclear power. Fusion reproduces the sun's power source and produces no greenhouse gas emissions and only low levels of radioactive waste. 'We represent more than half of the world's population, and recognize that by working together today we stand a much better chance of tackling the challenges of tomorrow, so energy is an issue of concern for all of us,' said EU Science and Research Commissioner Janez Potocnik after the ceremony. He said participants will aim to ratify their agreement before the end of the year so construction on the facility can start in 2007. Officials said the experimental reactor will take about eight years to build. The EU is to pay about half the cost to build the experimental reactor, with the six other parties contributing 10 percent each. If all goes well with the experimental reactor, officials hope to set up a demonstration power plant in Cadarache around 2040. Officials project that 10 percent to 20 percent of the world's energy could come from fusion by the end of the century. Environmental groups slammed the project as 'ill-judged and irresponsible,' saying there was no guarantee that the expense would result in a commercially viable energy source. 'Investment in energy efficiency and renewables is the only reliable way to guarantee energy security,' said Silvia Hermann, from Friends of the Earth Europe. The European Commission said the investment was justified, adding that the technology used in such fusion reactor plants would be 'inherently safe, with no possibility of meltdown, or runaway reactions.' The EU head office said the fuel consumption of a fusion power station would be lower than present day coal-fired power plants, which emit harmful emissions that damage the environment. The EU has also said that the Cadarache site will boost Europe's role in developing new technologies and is likely to create about 10,000 jobs. The consortium had been divided over where to put the test reactor, and competition was intense. Russia, China and the European Union wanted it at Cadarache, while Japan, the United States and South Korea wanted the facility built at Rokkasho in northern Japan. Tokyo backed down after agreeing to a bigger role in research and operations. Cadarache already houses one of the biggest civil nuclear research centers in Europe. -------- asia Australia Premiers line up to reject nuclear plant Wednesday, May 24, 2006 Australia Broadcasting http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1646553.htm Premiers of eastern states have rejected any moves to build a nuclear power plant in their state, after a report released yesterday on likely sites. The Australia Institute suggests several sites along the east coast which it says would be ideal for a nuclear power plant, if Australia moves in that direction. Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says he will fight "tooth and nail" any move to build a nuclear power plant in Queensland. Mr Beattie has told State Parliament the Australian Institute has suggested a power plant could be well placed on the Sunshine Coast. "Over my dead body," he said. "I make this commitment today to the people of the Sunshine Coast, there will be no nuclear power plant built on the Sunshine Coast or Bribie Island, where it was suggested Bribie Island was one of the sites, or anywhere else," he said. "It will not happen." New South Wales The New South Wales Premier, Morris Iemma, says there is legislation banning the construction of nuclear power plants in his state. The Prime Minister, John Howard, has said he wants a "full blooded" discussion about the nuclear industry in Australia. Mr Iemma says the current debate is pure politics. He says the Prime Minister should take advice from his own ministers, who say the idea is not viable. Victoria Premier Steve Bracks says nuclear energy is not a viable option for Victoria. "It's not cost competitive," he said. "If you look at the cost of nuclear generation in this state, it is higher than gas, it's higher certainly than coal, it's higher certainly than other forms of renewable energy." WA dump The Western Australian Premier, Alan Carpenter, says the Federal Government's real agenda on a nuclear waste dump for his state is becoming clearer by the day. Mr Carpenter has seized on comments by the federal Member for Kalgoorlie, Barry Haase. Mr Haase has been reported as saying that Australia should consider storing high level radioactive waste and that it would be able to "charge like a wounded bull" for those services. Mr Carpenter says it is becoming quite obvious the Federal Government is trying to soften up Western Australians for a nuclear waste dump. He says it will never happen under his watch. "Why would I, as the Premier of Western Australia, with my kids growing up in this state, want to see Western Australia become the world's nuclear waste dump, because no one else wants to take it and we're offered a big pile of money to take all that waste?" he said. "We don't need to do it." -------- australia Boom heads for bust Stuart Kelly May 24, 2006 AAP http://couriermail.news.com.au/story/0,20797,19239556-3122,00.html?from=rss INVESTOR Michael Birch says he fields calls every week from stockbrokers offering new shares in uranium explorers, most of which have not found any of the metallic element used for nuclear fuel and would not be allowed to mine it if they did. "You've got a lot of new stocks making extraordinary gains very quickly," says Mr Birch, from Wallace Funds Management in Sydney, who is avoiding the shares for the same reason he stayed clear of internet-related companies in the late 1990s – a lack of earnings. "There doesn't seem to be much to back up their performance," he said. "It's like the dot-com boom all over again." Toro Energy and U308 more than tripled soon after their initial public offerings on the Australian Stock Exchange in March and May. They are among six uranium explorers listed so far this year. Three pending IPOs will help double the number of uranium-related stocks in Australia from a year ago. Australia has about 40 per cent of the world's known uranium reserves and supplies about a fifth of all the metal mined. Exploration companies are gambling that soaring global energy costs and China's plan to expand nuclear energy fourfold by 2020 will attract investors, even though Australia's state governments limit mining of uranium to just three mines. Australia's Labor state governments ban the construction of new uranium mines beyond those three: BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam mine in South Australia, Energy Resources of Australia's Ranger mine in the Northern Territory; and Heathgate Resources' Beverley mine in South Australia. Heathgate is owned by San Diego-based General Atomics. Prime Minister John Howard has urged states to end their bans on new mining, and there are signs that he's succeeding. The Labor Party's energy spokesman, Martin Ferguson, said on March 31 that the bans' removal should be considered, while South Australian Premier Mike Rann already advocates abolishing it. Paladin Resources, Australia's biggest uranium explorer, has bypassed the new mining ban in Australia by building the Langer Heinrich mine in Namibia. It is due to begin operating in September. A $1000 investment in Paladin on January 1, 2004, is now worth $73,600. Perth-based Energy Ventures yesterday announced it had found uranium at its Njame North project in Zambia. Toro soared to $1.40 three days after it was listed at 25¢ on March 24. U308, named after the uranium oxide that makes up the majority of processed uranium ore known as yellowcake, soared 240 per cent on its May 9 debut. Encounter Resources shares quadrupled three days after it listed on March 24. A-Cap Resources leapt 80 per cent on its May 19 listing, InterMet Resources jumped 33 per cent on its April 20 debut, while Primary Resources rose 7.5 per cent on its March 8 start. Existing mining companies are also getting in on the act, further swelling the number or uranium-related companies. Great Western Exploration jumped 146 per cent on May 4, when it said it would change its name to Uran Ltd and buy uranium assets in Eastern Europe. Polaris Metals and Washington Resources gained 21 per cent and 15 per cent respectively on May 11, after saying they would spin off their uranium assets to form a new company, Northern Uranium. Canada has experienced a similar trend. The number of small-cap uranium stocks has doubled in the past year to 90, according to John Wilson, an analyst at Resource Capital Research, in a March quarterly review of the industry. That compares with 65 uranium stocks in Australia, up 96 per cent in the past 12 months. Ottawa-based Ur-Energy Inc., which explores in Nunavut in Canada and Wyoming in the U.S., has jumped 99 per cent this year. Uranium prices have surged almost fourfold in the past three years as countries turn to nuclear power generation. Higher coal, gas and oil prices and pressure to cut greenhouse gas emissions, blamed for global warming, are prompting the switch. The spot price of uranium was $42.75 a pound on May 17, up from $11 on May 14, 2003, according to industry publication Metal Bulletin. On April 3, Australia signed an agreement with China permitting uranium sales to the world's fastest-growing major economy and Asia's biggest energy consumer for the first time. Exports may begin within four years. Still, investors such as Brian Eley, a fund manager at Eley Griffiths Group, are sceptical that the recent surge in uranium-related stocks is justified, given that many explorers have yet to earn a dollar from uranium-related activities. "This is even worse than the technology bubble in 2000," he says. "Of all the uranium listings, I doubt that more than half-a-dozen will ever mine an ounce of uranium. These companies are getting extraordinary valuations based on pure speculation." Neill Arthur, executive chairman of Uranium Exploration Australia Ltd, said last month that the timing of his company's first profit was "in the lap of the geological gods". The company's shares are up 148 per cent this year. Barry Dawes, a director of Uranium Exploration, argues that some of the gains are justified given the potential for uranium finds close to existing deposits. "You only need one significant discovery and the whole lot will take off," Mr Dawes said. "That's likely when you consider the vast tracts of prospective land that haven't been properly explored." Uranium Exploration is searching within 50km of BHP's Olympic Dam, which holds the world's biggest known uranium deposit. "It's a game, but a serious one at that," said Mr Dawes, who is a founding principal of Martin Place Securities Pty Ltd. in Sydney, which has helped raise A$150 million in mining-related initial public offerings since 2000. "There are a few ratbags out there, particularly among the later listings, so you have to be careful." allace Funds' Mr Birch is sticking to existing producers, like BHP Billiton, the world's biggest mining company, and Rio Tinto Group, which controls Energy Resources of Australia. "The fundamentals for the uranium industry look enticing, but you still need to actually dig the stuff up to make a buck out of it," Mr Birch said. "I'm not so sure how many of these recently listed explorers will ever make it to that stage." -------- britain Blair attacked over 'secret nuclear agenda' By Andy McSmith Published: 24 May 2006 http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article570936.ece Tony Blair has come under a double attack from his allies for the way he introduced nuclear power to the political agenda. He was told that his announcement had aroused suspicions that there is a "secret agenda" behind government policy. One of the critics was the former environment secretary Stephen Byers, normally seen as a Blairite, who warned yesterday that the Government will now find it very difficult to achieve general agreement on where Britain should turn for its future energy supplies. Mr Byers said: "There are decisions being taken that some people believe prove there is a hidden agenda." His remarks were echoed by Sir Jonathon Porritt, the Government's leading adviser on alternative energy sources, who told a committee of MPs that Mr Blair's announcement was "not clever". The Prime Minister told industrialists this month that civil nuclear power was back on the agenda "with a vengeance". This was taken as a sign that he has already decided on the outcome of a major government review of future energy supplies, although the review is not complete. -------- china Pakistan, China to cooperate in peaceful use of nuclear technology: PM May 24, 2006 Xinhua http://english.people.com.cn/200605/24/eng20060524_268026.html Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz on Tuesday said that Pakistan and China were working towards further expansion of cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear technology for electricity generation, according to the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan (APP). A significant area of cooperation between Pakistan and China has been the harnessing of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes under international safeguards -- for the production of electricity, Aziz said while inaugurating a seminar marking the 55 years of Pakistan-China relations. Over the past 55 years, our all-weather and time-tested friendship has become higher than the highest mountains and deeper than the deepest oceans, Aziz was quoted as saying. The Pakistan-China friendship is designed to promote security and cooperation with their neighbors as well as their global partners, he added. Aziz underlined the need for both sides to redouble their efforts for the protection and promotion of international peace and security in a multi-polar system confronted with serious challenges such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, regional conflicts and the energy crisis as well as environmental degradation. -------- india American Ally: India Trails Behind Pakistan 2006-05-24 By Dipak Basu The Statesman/ANN Sinchew-i http://e.sinchew-i.com/content.phtml?sec=2&artid=200605240001 US President George W Bush has authorised the sale of F-16 to Pakistan. More will follow. This is the result of Pakistan's newly-acquired status as the major non-NATO ally of the US. India until 9/11 was hoping that US would declare Pakistan as a terrorist state. However, that hope was dashed when Pakistan again became the frontline ally of the United States, as US attacked Afghanistan. Since 9/11, India has offered every facility in India, both civilian and military, to the US, hoping to cement its relationship with the US. All this came to an end with the US declaration that Pakistan is now a "non-NATO ally" of the US, with the same standing as Australia, Japan, and Israel. It is unfortunate that the Indian Foreign Service has never analysed the long-standing anti-Indian policies of the US government. Since 1989, when the Soviet Union departed from Afghanistan, Pakistan has been sending its army and trained terrorists to Kashmir, "to take it away by the sword of Islam," as declared in various newspapers in Pakistan and abroad. The primary aim of that insurgency was to create terror among the non-Muslim population and drive them out of Kashmir. The process was completed in 1992, when more than 600,000 non-Muslim refugees came to Jammu. The government took no action against those responsible for this internal refugee problem for fear of upsetting the Clinton administration. The US state department has declared that the whole of the state of Jammu & Kashmir is a disputed area. Robin Rafael, the special assistant of Clinton for South Asia had advised India to solve the problem of Kashmir because insurgency was home-grown. In 1991 the Afghanistan government besieged by the attacks of the Islamic mujahedin supported by the Pakistan army, appealed to India for help. India refused to help Afghanistan, which was soon taken over by Pakistan-supported mujahedin who have direct links with the insurgents of Kashmir. Clinton in 1992 asked Yeltsin not to supply India with any weapons, not to help India in missile developments, not to supply anything for India's nuclear plants or engines for India's civilian rocket development programmes. Clinton also asked all its allies to do the same, so that India was practically isolated during the first seven years of the Clinton administration. In 1995, the Clinton administration amended Pressler's Law to start rearming Pakistan. This had deprived Pakistan of American military aid because Pakistan had taken delivery of nuclear weapons from China. In 1997, Robin Rafael came to Kandahar to congratulate the Taliban, created with the help of the Pakistani army. India's response was that these would not affect Indo-US relations. Very soon, Afghanistan became the virtual province of Pakistan. Since 1951, Pakistan's main purpose has been to act as the US government's South Asian terrorist arm, serving to destabilise the former Soviet Union, India and Afghanistan, and crushing all attempts at domestic democracy. In 1947, the US provided USD411m to establish its armed forces. When the country's first democratic elections scheduled for 1958 threatened to reduce the army's power, General Mohammed Ayub Khan, the commander-in-chief, cancelled them and took over the government in a coup. Pakistan became a US-financed garrison state, spending 80% of its budget on the military. A few years after the 1958 coup, Sardar Bahadur, Ayub's brother, alleged that the CIA had "been fully involved" in the coup. John Foster Dulles, US secretary of state, called Pakistan "a bulwark of freedom in Asia." With US arms, training, military aid and encouragement, the Pakistan army butchered 1/2 million to 3 million people in East Pakistan in 1971 when their popular, elected, left-wing leadership had the audacity to demand provincial autonomy. US officials reacted to this slaughter by thanking General Yahya Khan, the Pakistani military dictator, for his "delicacy and tact." In 1971, the US sent the 7th Fleet to attack India to rescue Pakistan from sure defeat in the Indo-Pak war in which Bangladesh was created. India was saved by the warning, from the Soviet Union to the US, not to interfere. The rewards for being a US terrorist arm in South Asia have been lucrative for Pakistan military's officer corps. During the war against the Soviets, Afghanistan supplied 60% of the US's heroin. Pakistani generals "were deeply involved" in this drug trade ignored by the CIA. The price for their country's being a US terrorist base has been paid by the Pakistani people, who for 55 years have been massacred, tortured, denied education, medical care, housing, adequate nutrition, and political rights. Pakistan ranks near the bottom of the UN's list of countries by every measure of human development, including infant mortality, life expectancy, poverty rate and population growth rate. The 9/11 investigation has completely disregarded the role of Pakistan in organising the attack on the World Trade Centre. Two days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, a delegation led by the head of Pakistan's military intelligence agency (ISI) Lt Gen Mahmoud Ahmed, was in Washington for high-level talks at the State Department. General Ahmed had, in fact, arrived in the US on September 4 2001, a week before the attacks. White House reports confirm that he had two meetings with deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage on September 12 and 13 2001. He also had "a regular visit of consultations" with US officials during the week prior to 11 September 2001, ie, meetings with his US counterparts at the CIA and the Pentagon. According to FBI files, Mohamed Atta was "the lead hijacker of the first jet airliner to slam into the World Trade Center and, apparently, the lead conspirator." At the instance of Gen Mahmoud, USD100,000 was wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh. Agence France Press confirms that the "damning link" between the General and the transfer of funds to Atta was part of the evidence, which India has officially sent to the US. The Bush administration's relations with Pakistan's ISI, including its "consultations" with General Mahmoud Ahmed in the week prior to September 11, raise the issue of "cover up" as well as complicity. While Ahmed was talking to US officials at the CIA and the Pentagon, the ISI allegedly had contacts with the September 11 terrorists. According to the Indian government intelligence report, the perpetrators of the 9/11 had links with Pakistan's ISI, which in turn has links with agencies of the US government. Pakistan was rewarded, not punished. Its economy was rescued by massive economic aid from the US. The US also offered USD9bn worth of military aid to Pakistan. Although the Indian ministry of foreign affairs is trying to play down the status of "the non-NATO ally" as a matter of symbolic importance for Pakistan, the future looks very bleak for India. Pakistan will now obtain priority delivery of defence material and the purchase, for instance, of depleted uranium anti-tank rounds; stockpile US military hardware, participate in defence research and development programmes; benefit from a US government loan guarantee programme, which backs up loans issued by private banks to finance arms exports. Already Pakistan has received about a billion dollars in aid for both civilian and military purposes. The US also has written off about USD400m of foreign debt Pakistan had with the US. More will follow in future, as Pakistan will be, like Israel and Egypt, one of the favourite destinations of the US aid. Pakistan has paid to the US already for the supply of F-16 aircraft which can carry nuclear weapons. The US had decided earlier not to supply these to Pakistan. Now there will be no restriction. As a result, along with the long-range ballistic missiles, already obtained from China and North Korea, Pakistan will have a formidable nuclear force outpacing that of India quite soon. It will automatically have the American nuclear umbrella. During the Clinton administration, India was frequently forced to accept an unequal treaty, which paved the way for the creation of the World Trade Organisation. India allowed its economic policy to be subjugated to the US interests. Even then the Clinton administration tried to force India to accept the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and failed. Since 1995, it has become the close ally of Pakistan and Taliban. The Indian private sector and the government were expecting dramatic changes in the economic relationship between India and the US, which was only partially fulfilled, with the US refusing to open its banking and finance sector to India or to reduce subsidies in agriculture or not impose anti-dumping tariff on Indian exports. The Bush administration made dramatic changes by creating an illusion of India as a long-term partner. After 9/11, India expected to be a partner of the US in the defence of Asia, by offering all assistance to the US. In the meantime, the Indo-US commercial relationship has flourished. The peace process with Pakistan is the price India has to pay to maintain its growing relationship with the US. However, the USA has now chosen Pakistan, not India, as the partner to achieve its goal to neutralise the Middle East, as culturally Pakistan is a part of the Middle East, not of the Indian sub-continent. The status of the "non-NATO ally" is the advance payment to Pakistan to achieve a "new Middle East" as desired by the US. Pakistan is eager to play the role to convince other Islamic countries in the Middle East and North Africa, that an American economic and political order, which has pulled up Pakistan from the status of a "failed and bankrupt" nation to an important ally of the US with a growing economy with its foreign debts paid up by the US, would also be beneficial for them both politically and economically. The Nixon administration neutralised Egypt, the most formidable foe of Israel, through a massive foreign aid programme. Iraq is already occupied. Economic sanctions are already imposed on Syria, which can be the next target of the US for attack. The aim of the US is to secure the future of Israel, when the whole of Middle East can be part of a much extended Central Treaty Organisation (Cento) of the 1950s. This extended Cento will be a part of NATO, as a NATO army is already in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kirghizia and Iraq. Pakistan as an Islamic country is perfectly suitable for such an outfit, but India does not fit into this picture. The United States does not want any further disturbance anywhere at present as that may overstretch its military capability. That is the reason it allows North Korea to possess nuclear weapons and missiles, asks Taiwan to accept the status quo and allows Pakistan to get away with the proliferation of missiles and nuclear weapons. Any war between India and Pakistan, even the low intensity war in Kashmir that is going on since 1989, is now a disturbance for the US. That is the reason the US is so eager to settle the Kashmir dispute with a long-term plan to turn Kashmir into an independent entity free from both Pakistan and India. Increasing transport links between Indian and Pakistani Kashmirs, visa-free entry for the Kashmiris from Pakistan to India, along with the proposal accepted already in the Kashmir assembly to allow Pakistani Kashmiris to settle on the Indian side, will eventually create an atmosphere where any objection from India against a proposed independent Kashmir will melt away through overwhelming international protests. In fact, the Indian business community will demand this type of settlement of Kashmir, so that they can have the market of Pakistan open for them. Already the Indian business community has turned China from the "Enemy No 1" in 1998 to "Bhai-Bhai" in 2004. In the same way, the image of Pakistan will change due to the growing commercial interests of India in Pakistan. Although it will create another 3 million refugees (non-Muslims of Kashmir) for India, this will be the painful consequence of the peace process. The US since the days of President Clinton is trying hard to isolate India from its traditional friend, Russia. Clinton had put pressure on President Yeltsin of Russia to cut off defence supplies to India. He has tried to isolate India totally after India's nuclear test in 1998 by imposing a draconian sanction against India. For the last five years, India has tried to reduce its links with Russia. The most important contract for the Indian Air Force was given to Britain, who was always against India on every international issue and never helped India in any international crisis. Russia is taking retaliatory action too. It has allowed Ukraine to supply tanks to Pakistan and is building a tank factory in Pakistan. It has refused to supply technology to fit nuclear weapons to the missiles it has supplied to India before. It has also refused to sell nuclear powered submarine to India. If India can be lured by the recent proposal of the US to buy F-16, collaborate on the civilian nuclear sector and energy development, relations between India and Russia will be diminished, and that will be fatal for India. -------- iran Afghanistan denies offering mediation between Iran, U.S. 2006-05-24 (Xinhua) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-05/24/content_4590950.htm TEHRAN, May 23 -- Afghan ambassador to Iran Mohammad Omar Davoudzi on Tuesday denied press reports that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is to offer mediation between Iran and the United States. "This is not true and no Afghan official has offered such mediation," Iran's official IRNA news agency quoted the Afghan ambassador as saying. Afghan media had reported that Karzai planned to discuss the possibility of his mediation between Iran and the United States during his upcoming visit to Tehran. Davoudzi said the media had misquoted Afghan foreign minister's statement, which said "Afghanistan is against any tension in the region and given our good relations with the U.S., Europe and Iran, we are doing our best to avert tension." Davoudzi underlined that during his visit to Tehran, Karzai will not put forward any offer to mediate between Iran and the United States, but the repatriation of Afghan nationals from Iran is on the agenda of talks. "Rather, general issues about further expansion of friendly and brotherly relations between the two countries will be discussed," the ambassador added. Both Afghan and Iranian media have reported that Karzai is to pay an official visit to Tehran in the near future, but the exact date has not been set. Washington has accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons under the cover of civilian nuclear program and called for the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran if Tehran failed to halt uranium enrichment. Iran has denied the charge and insisted on its right to peaceful nuclear technology. ---- Ex-defense secretary Perry warns against military action against Iran The USS Enterprise. One part of the US military machine that may be involved in military action against Iran. by Staff Writers Washington (AFP) May 24, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Ex-defense_secretary_Perry_warns_against_military_action_against_Iran.html Former US defense secretary William Perry cautioned Wednesday against taking any military action against nuclear renegade Iran, warning of a "horrific" backlash that could include a global Tehran-mobilized terrorism strike on the United States. Perry said the United States should instead be directly involved in multilateral talks with Iran to defuse the nuclear crisis instead of standing on the sidelines and letting the European Union negotiate with Tehran. Similarly, he said, the United States should also be more directly engaged with North Korea on ending its nuclear weapons drive, noting that China-led six-nation talks on the crisis for the last two years had failed to bring about a breakthrough. "The stakes are enormous," he said. Diplomatic efforts have been a "total failure. "We have dug a deep hole with Iran and North Korea and there are no attractive alternatives," Perry, currently a professor at Stanford University, told a forum of the Center for National Policy, a Washington think tank. He said a single "surgical" strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would not be sufficient to end the Islamic republic's atomic ambitions. "They need to be repeated...the unintended consequences of such a strike are horrific," he said, raising the possibility of a "long and complicated and bloody war" which is "a very serious and dangerous alternative." Perry, who served from 1994 to 1997 under President Bill Clinton and who helped shift the US military's post-Cold War focus from deterrence of threats to prevention, warned that Iran could mobilize a global "jihadist" (Muslim militant) attack on the United States and heavily back insurgents against US troops in Iraq. "The greatest risk today is a terrorist group getting a nuclear bomb" from either North Korea, Iran or Pakistan, he said. Iran, he pointed out, could orchestrate a "sanctioned leak" of nuclear technology to a terrorist group. The United States has refused to rule out military action against Iran even as it pushes for UN sanctions to force the Iranians to halt their uranium enrichment activities. Veto-wielding Russia and China are against sanctions. Britain, France and Germany, the so-called EU-3, which are involved in direct talks with Iran, hope to coax Tehran into suspending uranium enrichment work in exchange for a package of trade and technology incentives. Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes but has refused international appeals to stop. Tehran has told Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that it wants to hold talks with the West but only if there were no pre-conditions. -------- korea US envoy on North Korean nuclear program due in Beijing by Staff Writers Beijing (AFP) May 24, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_envoy_on_North_Korean_nuclear_program_due_in_Beijing.html US Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill arrived in China late Wednesday, the US embassy said amid a flurry of diplomatic activity aimed at breaking the North Korean nuclear stalemate. Hill had been expected to touch down in Beijing but was forced to land in Shanghai after bad weather caused his flight to be diverted. He is now expected in the capital early Thursday, a US embassy spokesperson said. Hill, the US envoy to the drawn-out six-nation talks on North Korea, will meet his Chinese counterpart in the negotiations, Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei, on Thursday, a US embassy spokeswoman told AFP. China is the host of the six-nation talks, which began in 2003 in an effort to end North Korea's nuclear program. They bring together the two Koreas, the United States, Japan and Russia. The talks have been stalled since November last year after the United States placed financial sanctions on North Korea for alleged counterfeiting and money laundering. North Korea has said it will not return to the talks unless the United States lifts the sanctions, but Washington has refused to budge. Hill's visit to Beijing comes after Wu held talks on Pyongyang's nuclear program with South Korean Vice Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan in Beijing on Tuesday, China's state-run Xinhua news agency reported. Hill was to travel from Beijing to Seoul on Thursday to discuss the North Korean nuclear standoff with officials there, the US State Department said last week. North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun will add to the diplomatic activity when he visits China from May 30 to June 6. China's foreign ministry announced the visit on Wednesday. -------- pakistan N-waste dumped in open: lawmaker Published: Wednesday, 24 May, 2006, 10:30 AM Doha Time http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=88038&version=1&template_id=41&parent_id=23 ISLAMABAD: A Pakistani lawmaker yesterday accused the country’s nuclear authorities of dumping radioactive waste near a village in central Punjab province, causing cancer, miscarriages, and infertility among villagers and livestock. Senator Sardar Jamal Khan Leghari said tonnes of contaminated waste from milled uranium had been dumped outside abandoned mines in Baghalchur village, some 350km southwest of Islamabad, flouting international nuclear safety norms. “It is fact. It is a matter of security of our people and animals,” Leghari, a member of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q) and son of a former president, said. The lawmaker said the country’s two prime nuclear institutions, Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) and Kahuta Research Laboratory (KRL), dumped radioactive waste in the area. PAEC issued a statement on Saturday saying no waste was dumped in the open. It was disposed of in caverns that were fenced off and guarded against intruders. PAEC said it has not found radioactivity in water, vegetation and air during its regular surveillance in the area. “No dumping of this waste is being undertaken in the open but in specially prepared rooms/caverns,” it said. Leghari maintained that, due to uranium radiation, the rate of miscarriages, infertility, cancer and skin-related diseases had increased 200% in his constituency of Choti, some 100 km away from the dumping area. “I have proof. We conducted survey and collected about 1,200 samples from Choti,” he said adding that he planned to present the evidence in parliament. Last week, a bushfire broke out near PAEC’s uranium extraction plant near Baghalchur, in Dera Ghazi Khan district, raising a scare over safety at the facility. - Reuters -------- russia Mixed US, Russian views on Iran nuclear talks By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent Wed May 24, 2006 (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060524/pl_nm/nuclear_iran_usa_dc_1 WASHINGTON - The head of Russia's atomic energy agency said on Tuesday he hoped for a "major breakthrough" on the Iranian nuclear row when major powers meet in London this week but a U.S. official said that more talks may be needed to reach agreement. Senior officials from the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- nuclear-armed permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- plus Germany are to meet to discuss a package of incentives and threats aimed at defusing a crisis over Iran's disputed nuclear program. The United States and its allies say Iran is developing nuclear weapons under cover of a peaceful energy program. Tehran denies the charge. "I hope that this proposal would be a major breakthrough in this issue," Sergei Kiryenko, who heads the atomic agency, told a news conference after talks with Secretary of StateCondoleezza Rice and other senior U.S. officials. But he gave few details and it was unclear whether serious differences had been resolved between Washington and Moscow over U.S. demands that Iran face sanctions, resisted by Russia, if it continues to defy the international community. Kiryenko did not speak to that point, but indicated that Russia and the United States had made progress toward a nuclear cooperation agreement that could greatly expand lucrative nuclear commerce between the two nuclear powers. U.S. officials have said such a deal could lure Russia away from nuclear and other cooperation with Iran. Commenting on the European Union package, the U.S. official, who spoke anonymously because sensitive diplomacy was in progress, said that after preparatory meetings on Tuesday, "there was no determination on the package" that would be presented to Tehran. "I wouldn't expect full closure at the meeting" on Wednesday, he said, adding there likely would be "more talks next week." The European Union package is likely to include an offer of a light-water reactor and an assured supply of foreign fuel for civilian atomic plants so Iran would not have to enrich uranium itself. Enriched uranium can be used as a nuclear fuel, but is also a key component of atomic weapons. IRAN SEEKING DIRECT TALKS--REPORT The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Iran was explicitly requesting direct talks on its nuclear program. According to the report, senior Iranian officials made requests through the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, Indonesia, Kuwait and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, the newspaper said citing U.S. officials, Iranian analysts and foreign diplomats. The U.S. official said that Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, chief U.S. negotiator on the Iran issue, met on Tuesday with his Japanese and Canadian counterparts in London to discuss intensifying pressures on Tehran, including freezing Iranian assets and blocking access to hard currency. Up to now, Japan and Canada have not been among the main participants in the Iran-related negotiations but western diplomats see Japan, in particular, as a key ally if a financial squeeze on Iran's leaders is to be successful. U.S. pressure last year prompted the Bank of Macau to curtail business with North Korea and administration officials see this as a very successful precedent. Citing U.S. anti-terrorism and banking laws, they have quietly exerted similar pressure on financial institutions and firms in Europe and elsewhere in an effort to limit Iran's access. As a result, four of Europe's biggest banks have already started curbing activities in Iran, the New York Times reported on Monday. Such decisions "have already had an impact on the situation in Iran," one senior European diplomat told Reuters. "It's the sanctions before the sanctions." ---- Russian missiles more than a match for US 'shield': general by Staff Writers Moscow (AFP) May 24, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_missiles_more_than_a_match_for_US_shield_general.html The head of the Russian military's general staff gave a sharp response Wednesday to US proposals to set up a network of "interceptor" missiles in central Europe to ward off potential attacks. General Yuri Baluyevsky said Russian inter-continental missile systems would be more than a match for the planned US deployment -- which Washington says is being planned not with Russia in mind but in case of attack from countries such as China, Iran and North Korea. "Already in the press they are naming concrete countries that could be the site of a so-called ... forward region in the United States' anti-missile defence system. One of those states is Poland, and it is not excluded that another could be Romania," Baluyevsky said in comments quoted by the ITAR-TASS news agency. "This is territory that is so close to our state that the siting there of this forward region, which could include systems for detecting and hitting inter-continental ballistic missiles and their warheads, couldn't fail to concern us," Baluyevsky said. "We can already say that current and future missile defence systems, created today, tomorrow and in the foreseeable future ... will be successfully overcome by our inter-continental ballistic missiles and their warheads," Baluyevsky said. Washington has said it hopes to set up around 10 missile interceptors in central Europe to ward off potential attacks with ballistic missiles. The Pentagon says that no decision has been taken yet about where the missile defence system might be located. The Russian general referred approvingly on Wednesday to President Vladimir Putin's recent state of the nation speech in which he warned of the necessity to keep up with the United States in the military sphere. -------- space Moscow angered by US plan for 'star wars' bases in Europe to counter threat of Iran By Rupert Cornwell in Washington Published: 24 May 2006 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article570954.ece In a move that is raising hackles in Moscow, the US is proposing to install an anti-missile defence system in central Europe to counter any future attack from a nuclear-armed Iran. The plan, for which the Pentagon has requested $56m (£30m) of exploratory funding from Congress, would cost $1.6bn and involve 10 interceptor units. The most likely base for the system is Poland, followed by the Czech Republic, officials said. For the moment, the scheme ­ first reported in The New York Times this week and which would parallel the anti-missile shield under construction in Alaska and California against attacks from North Korea ­ is largely symbolic and hypothetical. Iran currently has no weapons capable of hitting western Europe, let alone an intercontinental missile that could strike the United States. But as a showdown moves closer between the West and Tehran over its uranium-enrichment programme, and with the Israeli Prime Minister in Washington warning that Iran represents a threat not only to Israel but to Western civilisation, the US is determined to send another signal of its determination to act. The new shield would bring a direct US military presence deeper into Europe. And for Russia, the project reeks of American encroachment into what used to be its own sphere of influence. The move would have "a negative impact on the whole Euro-Atlantic security system", Sergei Ivanov, the Russian Defence Minister, told a Belarus newspaper, hinting at further strain on ever-delicate relations between Russia and Nato. The mooted site for the system was "dubious, to put it mildly", he said. This is not the first time the missile shield has divided the two countries. In 2002, President Bush upset Moscow by unilaterally pulling out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, long regarded in Moscow as the cornerstone of nuclear arms control. The possible extension of missile defences into Poland or the Czech Republic ­ both staunch American allies ­ is the latest episode of a story that has inspired dreams and controversy in equal measure since it was first sketched out by President Ronald Reagan in 1983 as the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI), quickly dubbed "Star Wars". But despite more than 20 years of work and tens of billions of dollars in spending, it is now accepted that any such shield would be overwhelmed by an attack from Russia, which possesses a nuclear arsenal comparable to the US. It has now been scaled back to cope with the far more limited strike that North Korea might be able to deliver to the continental US by the end of the decade. So far, nine interceptor rockets are in place at Fort Greely in Alaska, and two more at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. But the viability even of this version is questionable. "It [the shield] has been doing very poorly," a former Pentagon official involved in the testing told The New York Times. "They have not had a successful flight intercept test in four years." But the slow progress has not deterred extensive contacts between the US and Poland in particular. Polish press reports have said that Boeing, the lead company on the project, has already agreed to subcontract work to Polish concerns. According to The New York Times, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, is expected to receive a recommendation on a European site in the summer. If the plan for interceptors in Poland goes ahead, it would create the first permanent American military presence in the country. At least as logical a site for the shield would be Britain, where the Pentagon is already upgrading equipment at the early warning radar base of Fylingdales in North Yorkshire. But the intense domestic unpopularity of Tony Blair ­ who is meeting President Bush in Washington tomorrow ­ and hostility to the Iraq war have ruled that option out. Poland, on the other hand, has been a staunch ally of the US ever since Communism collapsed there in 1989. It is now a member of Nato, and has contributed troops to the occupation of Iraq. -------- treaties Seven Governments Sign Nuclear Fusion Agreement BRUSSELS, Belgium, May 24, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-24-04.asp A project to demonstrate the potential of nuclear fusion as an energy source moved a step closer to realization today as the seven governments involved in the research initialed an agreement on the construction, operation, and decommissioning of a research facility. Known as ITER, the project will attempt to harness the same type of energy which powers the Sun and other stars. This morning, ministers representing China, the European Union, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States of America met in the European Commission’s Berlaymont Building in Brussels to initial the agreement they have been negotiating over the past year. They have selected a site for the construction and operation of ITER at Cadarache in southern France. Their initials on the document opens the way to its signature by the governments concerned, expected to take place before the end of 2006, followed where needed by its ratification. "This is a truly crucial moment, for the ITER project and for global scientific co-operation in general," said European Science and Research Commissioner Janez Potocnik, who hosted the meeting. "Together we are forging a new model for large-scale global scientific and technical co-operation. We are sending an important message about seeing the value in working together to address our common challenges," Potocnik said. Fusion has several attractions as an energy source - its basic fuels are abundant and available everywhere, and there are no greenhouse gas emissions. As compared to nuclear fission, universally used today to generate nuclear power, there is no transportation of radioactive materials, no possibility of meltdown or runaway reactions, no long-lasting radioactive waste to be passed on to future generations. But Friends of the Earth denounced the ITER research as "ill judged and irresponsible," especially in view of the €3.6 billion that the European Commission will spend on the project. Although seven governments are involved, the European Union will fund over one third of the total construction and operating costs of the ITER, through Euratom. Silva Hermann, energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said, "Nuclear fusion may never be economically or technically practical. It is a new technique that has been a few decades away from reality for nearly 50 years. This goal of commercial viability has become a moving target and we have no guarantee that it will ever actually be reached." The European Commission has its priorities wrong, said Hermann. "Investment in energy efficiency and renewables is the only reliable way to guarantee energy security. Giving billions of Euros to a single nuclear project that is so far from reality is ill judged and irresponsible," she said. On April 1, the negotiators unanimously agreed on the proposal of European Union to designate an American scientist, Dr. Norbert Holtkamp as nominee to the principal technical management post under the Director-General of the prospective ITER Organization. Dr. Holtkamp is currently director of Accelerator Systems Division, Spallation Neutron Source at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the United States. The Parties asked Dr. Holtkamp to take up his duties promptly. Coming after the designation in November 2005 of Ambassador Kaname Ikeda of Japan as the nominee director-general, this means that the core of the management team of the prospective ITER organization is now in place. ITER is an experimental reactor which will reproduce the physical reaction of fusing the nuclei of atoms that occurs in the Sun and stars. Existing experiments have shown that it is possible to replicate this process on Earth. ITER aims to do this at a scale and in conditions that will demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion as a practical energy source. All of today's nuclear power plants split heavy uranium atoms to generate power. ITER will use fusion, which involves heating very lightweight atoms to above 100 million degrees Celsius - or 10 times the temperature of the Sun. This creates a plasma gas in which particles that usually repel one another combine, and thereby yield enormous quantities of energy. By caging the hot plasma with powerful magnets, scientists aim to keep the process going in much the same way that the Sun, confined by gravity, burns on and on. The development of the science and technology involved in this process is the basis of the European fusion program. ITER scientists explain that nuclear fusion is safe for workers and for the population surrounding the ITER facility in France's Cadarache forest. A fusion reactor is like a gas burner, they say, the fuel which is injected into the system is burned off. There is very little fuel in the reaction chamber at any given moment (about 1g in a volume of 1000 m3) and if the fuel supply is interrupted, the reactions only continue for a few seconds. Any malfunction of the device would cause the reactor to cool and the reactions would stop, they say. The basic fuels - deuterium and lithium – and the reaction product - helium - are not radioactive. The intermediate fuel – tritium – is radioactive and decays very quickly, producing a very low energy electron - Beta radiation. In air, this electron can only travel a few millimeters and does not have the power to penetrate a piece of paper. Nevertheless, the scientists explain, tritium would be harmful if it entered the body, so the facility will have very thorough safety facilities and procedures for the handling and storage of tritium. As the tritium is produced in the reactor chamber itself, there are no issues regarding the transport of radioactive materials. Extensive safety and environmental studies have led to the conclusion that a fusion reactor could be designed in such a way to ensure that any in-plant incident would not require the evacuation of the local population. Still, critics are uneasy. Some say ITER will draw more power from the French electricity grid than it will produce. Others say it discourages conservation. The French group Sortir du Nucléaire (Get Out of Nuclear) is the main French antinuclear coalition with a membership of over 700 organizations and more than 14,000 individuals. Spokesman Stéphane Lhomme told the "International Herald Tribune" last August, "There's a hidden message behind the ITER project. That message is, 'Don't change any of your consumption patterns because you'll soon have unlimited amounts of free power.' That's a big gamble." Hermann of Friends of the Earth Europe sayd, "Even if fusion does come through as an option, it will still carry risks of proliferation and radioactive contamination." Friends of the Earth Europe is calling upon the European Commission to withdraw from the fusion project. The group says funding should be channeled into EU research and development programs to develop sustainable and environmentally-friendly energy technologies, like solar, wind and biomass. This proposal has yet to be approved by the European Council and the European Parliament, and Friends of the Earth Europe is calling on these institutions to reject the Euratom budget proposal. In fiscal year 2006, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) allocated $25 million to ITER. President George W. Bush has requested $60 million for the project in fiscal year 2007. "As partners in ITER," said U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman today, "we are pursuing the promise of unlimited, clean, safe, renewable and commercially available energy from nuclear fusion, which has the potential to significantly strengthen energy security at home and abroad." Raymond Orbach, who signed the agreement as director of the DOE Office of Science, said, "Initialing this agreement brings us one step closer to a viable source of fusion power, with the potential to free the quickly growing global economy and population from the looming constraints of conventional energy supplies and their associated environmental effects." Orbach called ITER "the first stand-alone, truly international, large-scale scientific research effort in the history of the world." The seven parties to the agreement represent more than half of the world's population, he notes. Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service based in Washington, DC, has said, "The ITER fusion reactor is a big-science boondoggle that has no energy payback. ITER will divert billions of dollars away from real green energy solutions to the world's climate change crisis." -------- u.s. nuc facilities Bush Hopes To Expand Nuclear Power May 24, 2006 (AP) http://cbs3.com/topstories/local_story_144071642.html LIMERICK, PA. Calling nuclear power an over-regulated industry that needs a jump-start from Washington, President Bush on Wednesday pitched his plan to expand nuclear power generation by dealing with radioactive waste, lessening regulations and reviving nuclear fuel processing. The backdrop for the president’s effort was the Limerick Generating Station, a nuclear plant operated by Exelon Corp. about 40 miles from Philadelphia. Bush donned a white hard hat for a brief tour, then spoke to employees in a sweltering tent set up in the shadow of the plant’s two enormous cooling towers. Bush argued that nuclear power is abundant, affordable, safe and clean. “For the sake of economic security and national security, the United States of America must aggressively move forward with the construction of nuclear power plants,” Bush said. “Other countries are.” Some environmentalists have abandoned their opposition to nuclear power, arguing it is needed to address climate change because reactors do not produce “greenhouse” gases as do fossil fuels. Other environmentalists are not convinced, citing worries about reactor waste and safety. “The debate needs to fully address such vital issues as the exorbitant cost of building new nuclear facilities, the potential proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the disposal of radioactive wastes,” said Thomas B. Cochran, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s nuclear program. Bush’s quick visit to the Philadelphia area was also aimed at helping vulnerable Republicans seeking re-election this fall— though not all of the state’s high-profile GOP candidates took advantage of the presidential appearance. At a $1,000-a-ticket reception at a downtown hotel, Bush raised $600,000 for the state party and for GOP Reps. Jim Gerlach and Mike Fitzpatrick, prime Democratic targets who represent suburban districts narrowly won by John Kerry in 2004. But other Republicans facing re-election did not appear alongside Bush. Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, in one of the nation’s toughest re-election fights, needed to cast votes in the Senate, according to his campaign. Likewise, GOP Rep. Curt Weldon, who represents another Philadelphia suburb that Democrats are eyeing, remained in Washington to work. Bush’s polling in Pennsylvania matches his nationally, where it has dipped to record lows in the low-30s. Weldon press secretary John Tomaszewski said the lawmaker wasn’t invited and had votes all day in the House. Asked if Weldon was distancing himself from the president, Tomaszewski said “absolutely not—that’s ridiculous.” Limerick is the second nuclear power plant Bush has seen in less than a year. He is the first president to visit a nuclear power plant since former President Carter went to Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear plant after it partially melted down in 1979, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. Bush touted a range of ways he wants to make America less dependent on hydrocarbons, including promoting ethanol-, hydrogen-and battery-powered cars, clean-coal technology, wind and solar power and liquefied natural gas. “If we haven’t done something about our energy situation, we’re not going to be able to compete in the world,” the president said. There are 100 nuclear power plants scattered across 31 U.S. states, but has an order has not been placed for a new reactor since 1973. A broad energy bill Bush signed last summer provides incentives for building again, and Bush said interest is up eight-fold. The public is evenly divided on the question of building more nuclear plants, recent polling has found. The administration also wants Congress to approve $250 million— a small down payment—to accelerate a decade-long research program into reprocessing nuclear fuel, which advocates say would pose much less risk and reduce the amount of reactor waste that eventually would have to be buried. The United States abandoned nuclear fuel reprocessing in the 1970s because of proliferation concerns. “Nuclear power helps us protect the environment and nuclear power is safe,” the president said. ---- House scales back Bush nuclear power bid By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer Wed May 24, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060525/ap_on_go_co/house_nuclear_3 WASHINGTON - The House late Wednesday scaled back President Bush's ambitious plan to resume nuclear fuel reprocessing as part of an international program to boost nuclear power. A broad spending bill, passed 404-20 and sent to the Senate, cuts Bush's request for the first installment of the nuclear initiative in half, to about $130 million. An attempt to slash it by an additional $40 million was rejected. The $30 billion spending measure funds the Energy Department, related agencies and numerous federal water projects. While lawmakers expressed skepticism about the nuclear fuel recycling proposals, dubbed the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, they plan to resume full funding for development of a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada after several years of reduced spending on the program. The Yucca project, which has yet to receive a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, is years behind schedule with no firm date for completion. It is designed to hold 77,000 tons of used reactor fuel from commercial power plants and defense facilities. The bill provides $545 million for Yucca in fiscal 2007 beginning in October, an increase of $95 million over this year. It is the amount the president had requested. The House action came on a day that Bush, touring the Limerick nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, called the expansion of nuclear power and more construction of commercial reactors essential "for the sake of economic security and national security." He urged Congress to give him the full $250 million for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. The Senate is likely to do just that. Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., who heads the subcommittee that deals with energy funding, said he planned to possibly seek more than $250 million. If he succeeds, the different spending levels would have to be reconciled. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership calls for stepped-up research into reprocessing nuclear fuel, instead of using it once and then disposing it eventually in the planned Yucca Mountain repository. And it would establish an international program under which the United States would provide reactor fuel to other countries and then retrieve it for reprocessing. The United States abandoned nuclear fuel reprocessing in 1977 because of concern that it would make it easier to steal or divert plutonium for a nuclear bomb. Bush's plan envisions a new technology that would not separate pure plutonium, removing — according to its advocates — the nonproliferation risks. But the House Appropriations Committee, in a report accompanying the spending bill, said the Energy Department has not produced the needed details about the program's cost — estimated into the billions of dollars over several decades — or the certainty of the proposed technology. "There's only a guess of how much it's going to cost ... $3 billion to $6 billion for a demonstration project," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. And he said the proposed technology, while it may no longer be useful for a nuclear bomb, would "not be too dangerous for terrorists to handle for a dirty bomb." But Markey's attempt to slash an additional $40 million from the program was defeated 295-128. Rep. David Hobson (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, who had pushed for the earlier funding cuts to slow the program, said the additional reductions would threaten its existence. Rep. Joe Barton (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, said he was concerned the Energy Department might syphon money from a fund for developing a permanent nuclear waste repository — essentially Yucca Mountain if it completed — into the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Barton's amendment to bar such a move was approved by a voice vote. The fund, which totals more than $15 billion, is paid into by utilities that own nuclear reactors. The spending measure also provides $50 million — part of a decade-long $500 million program — for research into ways to develop oil and gas in extremely deep waters. Congress authorized the program last year as part of an energy law. Markey called it a subsidy for cash-rich oil companies — subsidies that Bush recently said should be rescinded. Barton said the money would go to universities and not major oil companies. An attempt by Markey to strip the money from the bill was rejected 255-161. -------- illinois Court issues cleanup plans for Exelon after tritium leaks (Crain’s) May 24, 2006 By Lorene Yue http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=20743 A Will County Circuit Court order issued Wednesday has paved the way for the cleanup of groundwater contaminated by a series of radioactive leaks at Exelon Corp.’s Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station. The court order, along with construction permits that were also approved Wednesday, allows Exelon to start draining a nearby pond to allow for the tritium-tainted groundwater. Once the groundwater moves into the pond, it will be piped out to the Kankakee River at discharge limits lower than what is required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “We are fully committed to the groundwater clean-up effort and the other aspects of this order” Chris Crane, Exelon Nuclear president and chief nuclear officer, said in a statement. “While state and federal agencies have confirmed that the levels of tritium in the groundwater are not a health or safety hazard to our neighbors, we have pledged that we would clean up the groundwater. All unplanned releases of tritium are unacceptable to Exelon.” The remediation process is one of several requirements outlined in the court order addressing steps that Exelon must take since the energy company recently disclosed a series of tritium wastewater leaks that occurred at its Braidwood facility between 1996 and 2003. Exelon had already started implementing some of the requirements, but state officials said they were included in the court order as a matter of record. Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan and Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow filed lawsuit in March against Exelon Corp., Commonwealth Edison Co. and Exelon Generation Co. over radioactive contamination at its Braidwood facility. “While the lawsuit continues to move forward, this order outlines the actions that Exelon Generation must take immediately,” Ms. Madigan said in a statement. “Lawsuits take time. This order is about requiring Exelon Generation to take steps to protect public and environmental health and safety now.” Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that can replace the non-radioactive hydrogen atoms found in water. It can be found in small amounts in most surface water, but exposure to concentrated levels can increase the risk of cancer, according to a statement by the Attorney General. Since the Braidwood disclosures, Exelon has provided bottled water to the roughly 420 Village of Godfrey residences that are likely affected by the contamination and has started testing 280 private residential wells for contamination levels. The company also installed leak-proof barriers and leak detection monitors with remote alarms at the station control center and stopped using a blowdown pipe line to discharge tritium waste water into the Kankakee River. In addition, Exelon must complete an investigation into the contaminations by June 30 and submit prevention, correction action and threat reduction plans to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency over the next several months. -------- massachusetts Traces Of Uranium Missing From Pilgrim Plant cbs4boston.com May 24, 2006 http://www.topix.net/content/cbs/0837813705184485467032634327133670646660 Authorities say a small amount of uranium is missing from the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth. A spokesman says it appears to have been misplaced inside the facility or possibly shipped out, but not stolen. The uranium is in two detectors that are used to monitor what's happening in the power plant's core. Pilgrim spokesman David Tarantino said the amount is .003 grams, which is like a pinch of salt. A spokesman with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says even though the amount of uranium is small it could be a health threat if it is handled by a person who is not properly protected or trained. The NRC became aware of the problem Monday night, when someone realized the detectors were missing. Tarantino says there's a chance the uranium was shipped to a low-level radioactive waste facility in South Carolina. -------- new mexico Groups Threaten Los Alamos With Clean Water Act Lawsuit ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico, May 24, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-24-09.asp#anchor3 Citing violations of the Clean Water Act at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), a group of six New Mexico community organizations Tuesday filed a Notice of Intent to Sue the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Regents of the University of California, which operates the lab for the U.S. government. “LANL Water Watch came together to hold LANL accountable for more than 60 years of contamination that now threatens our future drinking water supply,” said Kathy Sanchez, director of Tewa Women United, one of the community groups. “There are more than 1,400 documented contaminant sites at LANL, and every time it rains or snows, these contaminants move through our canyons and springs to the Río Grande. LANL needs to take immediate and effective action to protect our waters,” she said. Attorney Matthew Bishop of the Western Environmental Law Center, who is legal counsel for LANL Water Watch, said that the impending law suit was based on four specific violations of the Clean Water Act - failure to conduct adequate monitoring; failure to report violations; failure to have pollution controls in place, and making unauthorized discharges. “The result of these failures is that toxic contaminants are migrating to the Río Grande, the future source of drinking water for Albuquerque and Santa Fe,” he said. At a site on the Río Grande, Bishop called the pollution a catastrophe waiting to happen. “In addition, the Río Grande continues to be used for fishing and farming all along its length, enabling dangerous contaminants to get directly into the food chain.” Bishop said that studies by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) and LANL itself show that New Mexico’s future water supply is being threatened by a number of pollutants, including PCBs at more than 25,000 times the New Mexico Water Quality Standard protective of human health. Other toxins of critical concern include hexavalent chromium, the same carcinogenic compound featured in the Erin Brockovich movie. In addition, the groups say the water is being contaminated with discharges of nitrates, fluoride, high explosives, and numerous radioactive elements, as well as perchlorate, a chlorine-based chemical linked to thyroid dysfunction. Bishops points to the U.S. Department of Energy’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2007, which he says would result in a $90 million shortfall for cleanup of contaminated sites. "This drastic slash in funding would make it extremely difficult for LANL to meet federal Clean Water Act requirements or comply with the NMED Consent Order, which requires full and complete clean up of sites by the year 2015," Bishop said. “The Consent Order was formally signed by the NMED, LANL and DOE on March 1, 2005” Bishop said. “But without the funds, it’s an empty promise.” Sanchez said that LANL Water Watch hopes the lawsuit will result in LANL honoring its commitments. “We want zero contaminants discharged from LANL, we want it to honor the Order on Consent with NMED, and we want them to implement Best Management Practices for discharges and dumping,” she said. “And, we want federal and state regulators to hold LANL accountable." Sanchez says that LANL Water Watch wants to see the total of fines from prior and on-going violations to be vigorously pursued, paid in full, and allocated to complete and effective independent monitoring and remediation of the sites in question to prevent future contamination of our waters. Organizations in LANL Water Watch are Amigos Bravos, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Embudo Valley Environmental Monitoring Group, Partnership for Earth Spirituality, Río Grande Restoration, and Tewa Women United. -------- OTHER -------- environment Al Gore's global warming film: We've got the early review! By Jane Stillwater http://jpstillwater.blogspot.com From: Jane stillwater Date: Wed May 24, 2006 6:33pm "Go see the DaVinci Code," said my friend Toni. No way! I don't want to watch someone get blown up and tortured and chased through Europe by an obsessed albino. I want to watch something light and fluffy. I've had a hard day. First of all, my "get out of jail free" card didn't work and I spent the day behind bars. Of course I knew that I was in the slammer only because of a temporary job assignment but still...jail is jail. Then I went to visit my friend in the hospital. The ICU. Ventilator tubes. IV drips. Sigh. Then I got into a big fight with my youngest daughter. And forgot to buy cat food. And my bicycle got a flat tire. It was one of those days. THEN my friend Jean called and said, "Jane! I've got free tickets to a sneak preview of the new Al Gore movie tonight. Wanna go?" Sure. Why not. The alternative would be to stay home with only the finale of American Idol for company. I'll go. Perhaps I should have stayed home with Simon and Paula after all. What I learned from watching "An Inconvenient Truth" was that no matter how bad my life seemed to be, it was about to get inestimably worse. "If even one-half of Greenland and Antarctica melts," Al Gore told us, "all these cities will be under water." He showed us a map. And THERE was my house! And, apparently, this catastrophe could happen within the next ten years. I gotta move to the hills. But, in the end, I was glad that I went to see "An Inconvenient Truth". Obsessed albinos are strange, weird and interesting but don't really have anything to do with my own everyday life. But even though Al Gore's movie sometimes made me think of having to sit through a PBS documentary for science class, it really hit the nail on the head about something that is relevant, related and tied into my own life. This movie will make us think. It will make us act. It is stark. There are no holds barred. It is truth. It is real. And it is scary. Bottom line? I still don't like jail. I'm still angry with my daughter. My friend is still sick. But in the context of the extreme horror of possibilities that face us in the very near future if we don't do something IMMEDIATELY about greenhouse gases and stop farting around, we will be in more big trouble than anything we might possibly have experienced -- or even imagined -- so far. The jail, the daughter and the friend scenarios are just small and temporary things that can be easily fixed. "Compared to the dangers of global warming, even the threat of terrorism pales." But global warming cannot be fixed -- unless we really really really really try. NOW. I'm ready to go out and start trying. Watch the movie and you will be too.