NucNews May 29, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety Top nuclear official at time of Chernobyl summoned in probe into France's reaction to accident 05/29/2006 Pravda http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/29-05-2006/81179-Chernobyl-0 Investigators will question Pierre Pellerin on Wednesday, judicial officials said. He will be the first person interrogated in a lawsuit brought against the French government by more than 500 people who have developed thyroid and other cancers they believe are linked to the 1986 explosion that spewed radiation. The newspaper Liberation reported that judges suspect him of hiding the levels of radioactive damage to France, and said he could be accused of involuntary injuries. The French government has been widely ridiculed for insisting after the accident that the radiation did not reach France, though neighboring countries all said it had passed through their skies. Other European countries pulled milk from shelves or recommended that children take iodine tablets to ward off radiation, while France took none of these steps. Researchers and cancer victims accuse the government of intentionally downplaying the effects on France of the explosion, partly to protect the powerful nuclear industry, the AP reports. French government agencies have adjusted some of their initial radiation estimates since the accident, but deny any intentional deception. Meanwhile, about 10 Greenpeace activists carrying banners reading "France - Nuclear Wastebin" were detained Monday after forcibly entering a nuclear waste storage facility in northwest France that accepts waste from nuclear plants in several countries. -------- depleted uranium In Memory of DU Deaths Posted by : ilyana on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 10:52 AM PST http://www.choicechanges.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=594 The Goal of Peace This Memorial Day, how can we memorialize those who aren't dead yet, but will be, due to our country's use of Depleted Uranium weapons? Are these soldiers dieing for their country, or dieing for munitions manufacturers and modern robber barons in the oil business? Are these soldiers fighting to liberate the Iraqi people, or to maim and mutilate those who are not even born yet? The following was the lead article in today's Solidarity and Activism Newsletter*.. Confident U.S. generals commit war crimes Uranium as a force multiplier by Bob Nichols It always pays to listen, and to listen exactly, to what the senior U.S. military officials say about fighting wars. In 1991, Gen. Colin Powell sent 500,000 men with Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, lots of 70-ton Abrams Tanks and other soldier equipment for a 100-hour war against a weak third world country – Iraq. It was called the Powell Doctrine and required a quick enemy defeat by “overwhelming force,” “defined goals” and an “exit strategy.” Another George Bush, George Bush the second, sent only 145,000 troopers for the much more ambitious conquering and occupation of Iraq 12 years later. What changed? Why send 355,000 fewer troopers for a much larger, tougher, sure to get you killed job? The American war policies did not change. The answer is that the Americans had millions of pounds of a deadly microscopic “helper” called depleted uranium as a “force multiplier” deployed in Iraq. A force multiplier is a technological method to multiply the aggressiveness and lethality of an armed force. Dr. Katsuma Yagasaki of Ryukyus University in Okinawa, a physicist, stated publicly that the atomicity equivalent of the weaponized uranium gas deployed in Iraq by U.S. military forces is hundreds of thousands of times the radioactivity of the Nagasaki atomic bomb. Marion Fulk, who started working on nuclear weapons more than 60 years ago during the Manhattan Project, says, “I would say that it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people.” A leading scientist, Leuren Moret, speaking out on the use of depleted uranium today, says flatly, “Iraq is uninhabitable,” due to widespread radiation poisoning. Uranium weapons are criminal violations of international and U.S. federal law in at least four ways. That is exactly what the U.S. military and politicians demanded be used in Iraq and Central Asia. Noted humanitarian and war crimes lawyer Karen Parker gives a simple four point test to determine that DU is illegal and a war crime and a crime against humanity. However, using the four point test as a weapons spec gives the Pentagon the super weapon they wanted. War crimes lawyers, in many ways, wrote the spec for Washington’s latest genocidal wonder weapon. A weapon that: * strays off the field of battle. * lasts after the battle is over. * causes cancer and other major devastating diseases. * causes lethal harm to people and the environment, is an illegal weapon as determined by a U.N. body. In short, its use is a war crime DU, or so-called depleted uranium, fits the profile perfectly. The senior American military and political leadership had their super weapon. They then determined that the Iraqi people and others in Central Asia’s resource rich lands were in the way, had no right to live and had to go. They would be nuked by uranium munitions. The American war planners knew and assumed that the U.S. soldiers were expendable commodities, like bullets. They would be nuked, too. As the famous American secretary of state, His Excellency Henry Kissinger, said, “Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” The American expeditionary forces purposefully used a long lasting genocidal weapon, uranium gas, in Iraq to decimate the Iraqi civilization. The Americans are still using this genocidal weapon more than 15 years later. It’s estimated that more than a million Iraqis died during the past 15 years from wars and sanctions. There were only about 24.4 million Iraqis to start with in 1991. The extermination minded American senior politicians and military leaders are nothing if not determined, ruthless and relentless. As the brutal American Marines say, “Kill their ass and steal their gas.” The American privates and corporals, the so-called grunts, do not know they are included in the soon to be dead or maimed, because poison gas weapons are not controllable. The poison flies everywhere with the changing wind. Poison gas is very unpredictable. The grunts are “throw away soldiers.” The Pentagon reported 320 tons of deadly, radiation-dispersing weaponized ceramic uranium oxide gas weapons were deployed on the nearly defenseless Iraqis in 1991. Cancers and other diseases soared. Ever since the American atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in August 1945, radiation dispersing uranium weapons have been war crimes and illegal. Since the Americans are the world’s only “super power,” the world is in a quandary, wondering what to do to stop the Americans? The American generals and senior politicians are addicted to the incredible lethality and force multiplier properties of depleted uranium. Uranium weapons deliver death and illness in a big way, forever. That makes non-nuclear countries fear the United States. The American politicians love it because they know fear is a great motivator. Thousands of nuclear missiles remain on hair trigger alert, even today. The lethal nuke birds can fly in 15 minutes. All world leaders know it. Just like that, they could die in a global thermonuclear war in which everybody dies or wishes they were dead. After the U.S. nuked Japan in 1945 with large depleted uranium bombs wrapped around a tiny core of A-Bomb and H-Bomb devices, it did not take long for the U.S. monopoly on global thermonuclear weapons to evaporate into thin air and for nukes to proliferate like fleas on a dog. As the famed scientist Albert Einstein said, “There are no secrets.” Sure enough, soon Russia, China, France, England, Israel, Pakistan, India and probably others also possessed thermonuclear weapons. A country has to have a nuclear reactor to start a nuclear weapons program. Big American companies were very anxious to peddle the multibillion dollar Goliaths or little baby “research” reactors all over the world. The only difference in them is how much atomic bomb making material each can produce in a year when set up right. The big megawatt reactors can make the stuff for about 40 atom bombs a year. Indeed, that is their primary purpose. The highly subsidized, very expensive, very dirty “electrical power” the reactors heat water to make is effective political cover. The couch potato – dumbed down American public – does not see the reactors’ true purpose: atom bomb production. More than 40 countries now have 430 reactors around the world. That means more than 40 countries can produce, or already have produced, global thermonuclear weapons. The Pentagon wanted to be able to use radioactive uranium to kill and cause deadly cancers without the very noticeable boom of an actual atom bomb. The entire world was really down on the big atom bomb blasts on human populations. Still, the Americans exploded 1,200 atom bombs before Dr. Ernest Sternglass and others convinced the United States Senate to approve the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1962. The amount of radiation released by the atomic bombs pales in comparison to the huge amount of permanent killing radiation released in Iraq. The total radioactive life span of uranium weapons is a majestically creepazoid 45 billion years. The Iraqis have a right to ask, “Why do the Americans hate us so? Why do the Americans want to exterminate us?” Ordinary use of the big atom bomb was out. What were the U.S. political and military leaders to do? Answer: Go directly to the major radiation dispersing element in the atomic bombs and use it for radioactive munitions: dirty bullets, dirty shells and dirty bombs – depleted uranium. Problem solved. The military-industrial-congressional complex had their force multiplier back. But, with budgetary battles and contending with those within the military who opposed Radiation Dispersing Weapons, it took decades to craft and develop the uranium munitions. Keep in mind that these are not “uranium covered” or “uranium tipped” or “weakly radioactive” weapons as Pentagon apologists, propagandists and other war promoters say they are. They lie. Uranium weapons in use today are machined from solid uranium. The most plentiful metal in the atom bombs used to devastate Japan and warn the world about the trigger happy senior American leadership was so-called “depleted uranium.” It was five feet thick and only fractionally less radioactive than the feedstock uranium it came from. DU would be ideal as a killer weaponized radioactive uranium gas fired in conventional weapons. A vanishing small percentage of the radioactive uranium in a hundred pounds of uranium is deadly enough to make atomic bombs; but it is all radioactive. Take one half of the tiny amount of bomb making stuff out and it is called “depleted uranium.” What a con, and hundreds of millions of Americans fell for it! Thus, depleted uranium rounds, including bombs, were born. They were tested in various wars – field tests for new weapons – and configurations before the new genocidal munitions were ready for prime time in the 1991 Iraq “war” turkey shoot. The Pentagon admitted to using 320 tons of DU – of weaponized uranium gas, aerosols and fragments – that left Iraq a cancer ridden radioactive wasteland. The genocide embracing American forces were not through with Iraq yet, though. They would be back. The Americans have spent billions of dollars to set up and maintain a huge industrial operation to produce nuclear weapons of all kinds. This ranges from the publicly understood atomic bombs like those used on two Japanese cities’ civilian populations to the nuclear radiation dispersing bullets, shells, land mines, missiles and bombs. The uranium weapon as a force multiplier is alive and well. Today, this vast industrial strength nuclear weapons establishment maintains four ammunition storage dumps in the U.S. and an unknown number around the world. Each of the U.S. ammo dumps in the U.S. is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to have 22,000,000 pounds of actual uranium on hand in uranium munitions. When these huge war material centers move into high gear, they are a wonder of lethal industrial killing efficiency. To maintain “Class 1” status, the ammo dumps must be able to ship 3.2 million pounds of weapons a day for 30 days. That can total 384,000,000 pounds of radioactive weaponized ceramic uranium oxide poison gas dispersing weapons per month. George Bush the Second launched the “shock and awe” uranium bombing campaign against Baghdad and the remainder of Iraq in March of 2003. Within nine days, microscopic radioactive uranium oxide particles were detected in special high volume air filters in Aldermaston, England, some 2,700 miles away. Millions of pounds of uranium gas contaminated Baghdad yet again. Government and university scientists estimated the five week uranium bombing campaign exposed hundreds of millions of people in Europe and Britain to tiny radioactive particles at the adult male lung dose rate of 23 million particles. Cancers and other illnesses will follow, of course. For the first time in 41 years, the infant neonatal death rate is inching up. The tiniest babies die first. Tony Blair, the English prime minister, tried to ride the tiger too many times to no effect. The berserker Americans were uncontrollable. This is Bush’s true legacy. Now, we really must listen to the war criminals in the senior American political and military leadership. The purpose of the illegal uranium weapons is to multiply the effectiveness of a smaller force by killing or maiming the enemy continuously, after the initial battle is over. The millions of pounds of radioactive ceramic uranium oxide gas and dust all over Iraq are a deadly virtual army – killing and maiming civilian Iraqi men, women and children continuously. People have always thought wars against children are particularly gross. That is not a problem for the American war machine planners at the Pentagon. Just look at what they do. The radioactive virtual army secures the Iraqi homeland. The American war criminals are free to “redeploy” or ship the now radioactive, dying, constantly replaced American Army veterans to whatever little country is next – Iran, Syria or North Korea. “Only” about 2,300 American troopers were sacrificed in the past three years in Iraq. Those deaths are acceptable to the American leadership. So were those of 250,000 Iraqis. They will move on and turn yet another country into radioactive rubble. The only real question is: “Who’s next?” Some Americans think that all this just could not happen in America. Foolish American intellectuals think that mere words without acts will deter the in-control American fascists. They simply do not understand that the old American Republic is dead and gone. Now, in 2006, the United States is the most successful fascist empire, with the most lethal military, in the history of the world. The fascist government of war criminals and crooks must be put out as soon as possible, certainly before they invade Iran and use global thermonuclear weapons as promised and nuclear munitions again to do so. Words do not count in this arena, though, only actions. Because, ultimately, these senior American generals and politicians must be cast out of office, tried and appropriately punished for committing these war crimes. It is the right thing to do. What America is doing to the world is wrong and criminal. All Americans are war criminals. We all bear responsibility – all 300 million of us. There are at least six individuals, probably hundreds more, affiliated with the DOD, the CIA and the DOE who aggressively argue for the God given right of the American Expeditionary Forces to use deadly uranium weapons. These public relations masters work hand in glove with their programming counterparts in the big media to maintain the lie. Since this article will only be seen in the SF Bay View newspaper, which goes all over the U.S. and the world, and on the Internet, it is fairly easy for these despised characters to publish continuous “feel-good” articles about these nuclear munitions. Already this series of anti-nuclear munition articles is sent by you, the readers, all over the country and the world. You must do more – always more. Feel outraged? Helpless? Upset? Powerless? I do! Do you want to stop these Americans from committing these war crimes? Then you must “be the media.” Do the only thing you can control. Tell your friends and neighbors about this. Just say, “The U.S. is using radioactive weapons and is destroying the world. What can we do to mess with them? Let’s do it.” Working together, you will be able to figure out all manner of wildly inventive and cool things to do to stop this worldwide menace. The generals and politicians don’t stand a chance against a righteously angry American public. Just go ahead and do it. Don’t wait for permission. You are right! Don’t be timid! The whole world is watching. Thank you for your time. Bob Nichols is a Project Censored Award Winner. He is a correspondent for the San Francisco Bay View newspaper and a frequent contributor to various online publications. Nichols is completing a book based on 15 years of nuclear war in Central Asia. He is a former employee of the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant. You are encouraged to write him at bob.bobnichols@gmail.com or DUweapons@gmail.com. Original article at: http://www.sfbayview.com/051706/warcrimes.shtml *This came to me via Marie Prescott's Solidarity and Activism newsletter. If you would like to subscribe, email Marie at: talkin56@hotmail.com -------- europe Normandy Aquifer Seven Times More Radioactive Than French Limit PARIS, France, May 29, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-29-02.asp Radioactive tritium from a nuclear waste storage facility in Normandy, France is leaking into groundwater that is being used by local farmers for their dairy cattle, according to a new report published by the French laboratory ACRO. Contamination from the low and intermediate level nuclear waste disposal facility at la Hague, the Centre Stockage de la Manche (CSM), migrates from the dumpsite into the underground aquifers used by farmers, the Hérouville St Clair-based laboratory found. "Because of its mismanagement, CSM is causing damage to the environment," said ACRO Director Dr. David Boiley. "Repeated incidents have led to a constant release, and as a consequence the ground water and many outlets are highly contaminated with tritium." Tritium contamination is regarded by the French Radioactive Waste Agency as a good tracer for anticipating future contamination from other radionuclides in the dumpsite. These include strontium, cesium and plutonium, all cancer causing radionuclides. ACRO was appointed by the French government to the CSM Commission, a body responsible for surveillance and public information disclosure. The lab is also a member of the government appointed North Cotentin Radiological Goup investigating health consequences from the nuclear facilities at la Hague. The ACRO report, "Nuclear Waste Management: the lessons from the CSM Disposal Site (Centre Stockage de la Manche), May 23, 2006," contains extensive analysis of the condition of the CSM site, and measurements of radioactivity on the la Hague peninsula. Located on the western tip of the Cotentin Peninsula in Normandy, the Areva NC La Hague site reprocesses spent nuclear power reactor fuel into reusable uranium and plutonium. ACRO found that levels of radioactivity in the aquifer are on average 750 Bequerels per liter (Bq/l), - more than seven times the legal European safety limit of 100 Bq/l. In agricultural land close to the dumpsite, ACRO tests found levels in the underground aquifer during 2005 averaged 9000 Bq/l - 90 times above the safety limit. "We must note that for a long time there has been a lack of information regarding this chronic pollution, and even now a precise assessment of its impacts still needs to be done," Boiley said. "As far as the future situation," he warned, "it could worsen in the long run because there is no guarantee that the wrappings of the older wastes, which also contain more hazardous elements, will last for long periods of time. When a new contamination is detected it will be too late." Scientists from the ACRO lab, together with Greenpeace, have been conducting a survey of radioactive contamination leaking from the nuclear waste disposal facility at la Hague. "More than 30 years ago the French public were assured that selection of the CSM dumpsite was based upon extensive assessments of the geology and hydrology, and that there was no risk of contamination," said Shaun Burnie Greenpeace nuclear campaigner. "In reality," he said, "levels have reached thousands of times the natural background level." The nuclear waste contaminating the aquifer in Normandy was produced by reactors operated by Electricite de France (EdF) and foreign customers of Areva, the French state owned nuclear industrial conglomerate. Through its three branches, Areva covers the entire nuclear power cycle. Areva NP, formerly Framatome ANP, develops and builds nuclear reactors. Areva NC, formerly Cogema, deals in the nuclear fuel cycle from uranium mining, conversion and enrichment through spent fuel reprocessing and recycling. Areva T&D handles power transmission and distribution. Between 1967 and 1994 over 1.4 million containers, with a volume of 527,000 cubic meters of waste, were dumped at the CSM in trenches and purpose built vaults. The largest volume of waste disposed of at the CSM was produced by EdF, which operates 58 nuclear reactors. In its report ACRO says the inventory of the wastes at CSM "is not precisely known," but the laboratory is able to identify 100 kilograms of plutonium, "as well as many other alpha emitting elements particularly toxic in case of contamination." In addition, there are chemical toxics which will not disappear with time, including almost 20 tons of lead and one ton of mercury, ACRO reports. Of the total waste in the CSM approximately 10 percent was from foreign nuclear power companies in Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, Belgium, Switzerland, and Sweden, despite the fact that it is illegal under French law to dispose of foreign waste in France. The CSM dumpsite reached its capacity in 1994 and was closed. Thereafter, large volumes of nuclear waste have been disposed of at France's new site in eastern France at Soulaine, Centre Stockage l'Aube (CSA). The 1991 Law Bataille on nuclear waste, prohibits the storage and disposal of foreign waste in France. The current proposed law under debate in France's Senate upholds this principle. Still, Greenpeace is warning that the waste crisis in France is not being seriously addressed by the French government in its proposed waste law. A two day Senate debate and vote on the law will take place on May 30 and 31 - it follows a National Assembly debate in April. "The nuclear industry in France - in common with the industry around the world - has no safe method for dealing with its nuclear waste," said Burnie. In addition to its low and intermediate level waste dumpsites, the French government is planning to develop an underground site for high-level radioactive waste in eastern France at Bure. Meanwhile, French high-level waste is temporarily stored at the Areva NC La Hague plant. Greenpeace warns that the same assurances that were made for CSM on geology and hydrology now are being issued about both Soulaine and Bure. The report, "Nuclear Waste Management: the lessons from the CSM Disposal Site," is found at: http://www.acro.eu.org -------- iran Turkey opposes Iran's nukes May 29, 2006 Reuters http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19302032-1702,00.html TURKEY reassured its ally Israel that it opposed Iran, arch-foe of the Jewish state, acquiring nuclear weapons and said it wanted to see the whole Middle East region freed of the atomic threat. "Turkey is completely against the proliferation of nuclear weapons," Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul told a joint news conference with his visiting Israeli counterpart Tzipi Livni, replying to a question about Iran. "We encourage cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and believe that especially countries signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have a responsibility to act with full transparency." The United States and its Western allies believe Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb, though Tehran insists its atomic programme is aimed solely at producing energy. Predominantly Muslim but secular and non-Arab Turkey is the only NATO ally to share a border with Iran and it has trodden carefully in its approach to Tehran, with which it also has important energy and trade relations. -------- japan Japan Cabinet Approves US Forces Plan By REUTERS May 29, 2006 http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/sf/nyt5_30_06_1.htm TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan on Tuesday approved a final plan to tighten bilateral security ties and reorganise U.S. troops in the country, part of Washington's global strategy to make its forces more flexible in the face of modern threats. Approval of the plan paves the way for streamlining the approximately 50,000 U.S. military personnel in Japan and giving Tokyo a bigger role in the key alliance, the pillar of its postwar diplomacy. The plan faced numerous hurdles, including friction over agreeing how to fund the relocation of 8,000 U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam that delayed agreement between the two nations for nearly a month beyond a March 31 deadline. ``This plan aims at reducing the burden on the local people and is quite meaningful in the sense of strengthening the U.S.-Japan alliance in the current security climate,'' chief cabinet secretary Shinzo Abe told a news conference. The national government still has to court residents of the southern island of Okinawa, who remain opposed to moving the Marines' Futenma airbase due to worries about noise, crime and the environment. ``Now we have to work together on this realistic plan,'' Defense Minister Fukushiro Nukaga told reporters. ``We will keep discussing things with local residents in order to bring the situation to a satisfactory conclusion.'' FURTHER DISCUSSIONS Okinawa governor Keiichi Inamine signed a document earlier this month in which he and the government agreed to ``deal with'' relocating Futenma, but later said he had not fully signed off on the plan and that further discussions are needed. The troop realignment meshes with Japan's efforts to move beyond the constraints of its postwar pacifist constitution and raise its global security profile. Tokyo's shifting security stance is fed by concerns over North Korea and China's growing influence as well as its desires to take on a more ``normal'' role as a nation whose military can operate abroad and in conjunction with its allies. Key to the plan is reducing the burden on Okinawa, which is home to nearly half the U.S. military in Japan and has long resented what it sees as an unfair burden under the bilateral alliance. Local anger flared in 1995 after a schoolgirl was raped by three U.S. servicemen and revives periodically whenever U.S. military personnel are involved in crimes. Military planners say troops on Okinawa are essential due to its proximity to China and North Korea but the plan did agree to pare the number of Marines by 8,000 through a shift to Guam. Japan ultimately agreed to pay 59 percent of the total cost of this move or roughly $6.09 billion, down from the 75 percent requested by Washington. Tokyo will also have to pay an additional 1.1 trillion yen ($9.8 billion) over the eight to ten years, down from government estimates of 2 trillion yen, government sources were quoted by Kyodo news agency as saying. Abe said financing details were still being worked out but will not include an extra budget at this point. Other important aspects of the plan include a package of steps to improve U.S.-Japan military cooperation in areas such as ballistic missile defense. -------- russia Russia to remove enriched uranium from satellite states by 2013 by Staff Writers Moscow (AFP) May 29, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_to_remove_enriched_uranium_from_satellite_states_by_2013.html Russia announced on Monday that it would repatriate by 2013 the enriched uranium from reactors the USSR set up in 17 countries, as part of the Global Threat Reduction Inititative (GTRI). The 17 countries, which possess a total of 20 Soviet-era nuclear reactors, have all agreed to participate in the GTRI. The initiative, launched by the United States in 2004, aims to identify, secure and remove US and Russian nuclear materials located in other countries around the world, in order to avoid their falling into the hands of terrorists. Russia's first operation was completed in secret in April, when 63 kilograms (140 pounds) of uranium -- enough to make two and a half nuclear bombs -- were secretly removed from Uzbekistan, according to Valeri Govorukhin, deputy director-general of Technsabexport, which deals with exports of products and services produced by the Russian federal atomic energy agency (Rosatom). "The Uzbek reactor was only 37 kilometres (23 miles) from Afghanistan," where US-led forces are battling Islamist extremists, Govorukhin noted. "The operation was paid for by the United States and cost around seven million dollars (5.5 million euros), a third of which went on environmental protection," he said. The uranium arrived at the Mayak storage facility near Chelyabinsk in the south of Russia's Urals region after 16 days' journey, under high surveillance, from a research reactor 30 kilometres from the Uzbek capital, Tashkent. The next two countries from which Russia plans to remove fissile material are Latvia and the Czech Republic. "We plan to finish the programme of repatriating enriched uranium by 2013," Govorukhin confirmed. According to the International Atomic Energy Agancy (IAEA), more than 100 research reactors around the world are using highly enriched uranium that could be used for terrorist purposes. ---- Nuclear Waste Plant Chief Dismissed for Major Pollution Reinstated 29.05.2006 MosNews http://mosnews.com/news/2006/05/29/mayakisback.shtml Vitaly Sadovnikov, director of the Mayak nuclear waste processing plant, returns to his former post only three months after being dismissed for a breach of safety rules that led to the dumping of radioactive waste in rivers. Russia’s chief nuclear official Sergey Kiriyenko on Monday told the press he had reinstated Sadovnikov in his office, Prime-Tass agency said. “The Prosecutor’s Office charges against Sadovnikov have been settled,” Kiriyenko said. In March, the court in the Ural Mountains city of Yekaterinburg determined that Vitaly Sadovnikov, the director of the Mayak plant, could not remain in his post. The Russian Prosecutor General’s office said that he had sanctioned the dumping of tens of millions of cubic meters of liquid radioactive waste into the Techa river in 2001-2004, even though the facility had enough money to prevent it. Instead of preventing the damage to the environment, Sadovnikov had spent the money on maintaining an office in the Russian capital and on lump payments made to himself. However on May, 11 the case was closed due to an amnesty declared to mark the State Duma’s 100th anniversary. Mayak, located near the Ural Mountain city of Chelyabinsk, about 1,500 kilometers (950 miles) east of Moscow, produced nuclear weapons during Soviet times and is now Russia’s main nuclear waste processing plant. Some environmentalists say the area around it is among the most contaminated on the planet. -------- MILITARY -------- nato Analysis: NATO lacks muscle to help US By Martin Sieff May 29, 2006 (UPI) http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1167836.php/Analysis_NATO_lacks_muscle_to_help_US WASHINGTON, DC, United States -- Is the expanded 'super NATO' America`s greatest strategic ally, or is it in reality a hollow shell, multiplying American strategic commitments without providing any significant resources to deal with them? The question is prompted by a report in the London Sunday Telegraph May 28 that reported Britain`s small, but high quality armed forces are already being stretched beyond their limits by two modest troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands of British soldiers in Iraq have had their tour of duty extended from six to seven and a half months because Britain`s Royal Air Force does not have enough transport aircraft to move troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time, the Sunday Telegraph said. Britain is the only major U.S. ally with significant capability to deploy thousands of troops relatively quickly to trouble spots or for strategic operations around the world. The British military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan are not even large. Britain only has 8,500 troops in southern Iraq, a far smaller figure than the number of foreign mercenaries hired by the U.S. Department of Defense through private security companies still operating in that country. And in Afghanistan, the British military presence is significantly smaller than Germany`s. The RAF has fewer than five Tristar troop transporters, each capable of carrying 266 troops at a time and equipped with protective anti-missile defenses, to handle its commitments in the far-flung Iraq and Afghan theaters, the Sunday Telegraph said 'The revelation undermines the claim that Operation Herrick - the deployment of 3,300 troops in Afghanistan - would not affect troops in Iraq,' the newspaper said. The paper said that the transportation and manpower crisis came as no surprise. It said former senior British commanders had claimed that soldiers` lives would be lost if the British Army was constantly asked to 'do more with less'. 'The problem has arisen because the troops serving in Afghanistan were due to be replaced after six months on operations at the same time that 7,500 troops are serving in Iraq,' the paper said. It said that the troops of 20 Armored Brigade, normally based in Germany, would carry most of the increased burden in Iraq. The unit began arriving in southern Iraq last month and could under normal conditions have expected to return home in October. The British Ministry of Defense confirmed that a shortage of aircraft meant troops would spend longer in Iraq. The Telegraph said that the British government was trying to deal with the problem by leasing three U.S. C17 transport planes. However, even so, 'the RAF was unable to give assurances that it would be able to cope with transporting more than 20,000 troops over two weeks,' it said. The British dilemma highlights the growing paradox facing the venerable North Atlantic Treaty Organization, founded in 1949. Over the past decade, at the urging of successive U.S. governments and with the enthusiastic support of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the alliance has dramatically expanded in size so that it now numbers 26 member nations, the largest figure in its history. And more countries, including giant Ukraine, whose population and area are comparable to those of France, are eagerly knocking on its door hoping to get in. Yet the growth of NATO, far from energizing the alliance, has actually dramatically weakened it in practical military, operational terms. Only three of its member nations, Britain. France and Germany, have proven both able and willing to deploy significant forces out of theater, and none of their commits amounts in size to as much as one seventh of the current U.S. troop commitment in Iraq alone. Apart from Britain, every other troop deployment by NATO member states out of the European theater has been almost wholly dependent on U.S. aircraft and logistical capabilities to operate. Yet the United States faces the possibility of military confrontation with Iran, with a population of 70 million compared to the 25 million in Iraq, in the near future. At the same time, U.S. relations China have deteriorated and China has for more than a decade been methodically building a huge troop and missiles deployment to control the Taiwan Strait and deny its use to U.S. nuclear aircraft carrier battle groups in the event of any Sino-American conventional military conflict over Taiwan. NATO is routinely referred to by both U.S. and European political leaders as the largest, most successful; and most powerful military alliance in history. In terms of the nuclear capabilities of the United States, Britain and France, the power claim is literally true. But in terms of projecting and deploying conventional military forces around the world, NATO`s resources are extremely limited. Some 22 of its 26 member nations are in no condition to 'export' any military power and security at all and only three that are -- Britain, France and Germany -- are extremely limited in their conventional military resources and by domestic political considerations from doing so. The British manpower and logistics crisis is a sobering warning of NATO`s hollow shell dilemma. The bigger it grows, the weaker it becomes. -------- prisoners of war Guantanamo hunger strikers now number 75 Updated 5/29/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-05-29-guantanamo_x.htm SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — The number of Guantanamo Bay detainees staging a hunger strike has grown from three to 75, the U.S. military said Monday, reflecting increasing defiance among men who have been held for up to 4 1/2 years, most without charges and with little contact with the outside world. Navy Cmdr. Robert Durand said the ballooning number of hunger strikers was an "attention-getting" move that may be related to a May 18 clash between 10 detainees and 10 U.S. military guards in which six detainees were injured. The same day, two detainees also overdosed on anti-depressant drugs they had been hoarding. They have since regained consciousness. "The hunger strike technique is consistent with al-Qaeda practice and reflects detainee attempts to elicit media attention to bring international pressure on the United States to release them back to the battlefield," Durand said from the base. Seventy-six detainees began the hunger strike in August to protest their indefinite confinement. A month later the number of hunger strikers grew to 131, according to the military, but dwindled to just three earlier this year. Defense lawyers said many detainees ended the protest because the military adopted more aggressive measures to force feed them using a special restraint chair. The military called the measures "safe and humane." The U.S. military holds about 460 men at Guantanamo on suspicion of links to al-Qaeda or the Taliban. Human rights groups say many innocent people have been swept up in the Bush administration's war on terrorism and sent to the prison at the Cuban base in Guantanamo Bay, with no end in sight to their incarceration. Only 10 of the detainees have been charged with crimes. Their military trials, the first held by the United States since the World War II era, are set to begin within months. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, is expected to rule in June on whether President Bush overstepped his authority by ordering war-crimes trials for some of those held at Guantanamo Bay. -------- us Pentagon Seeks Nonnuclear Tip for Sub Missiles By MICHAEL R. GORDON May 29, 2006 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/29/washington/29strike.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print WASHINGTON, May 28 — The Pentagon is pressing Congress to approve the development of a new weapon that would enable the United States to carry out nonnuclear missile strikes against distant targets within an hour. The proposal has set off a complex debate about whether this program for strengthening the military's conventional capacity could increase the risks of accidental nuclear confrontation. The Pentagon plan calls for deploying a new nonnuclear warhead atop the submarine-launched Trident II missile that could be used to attack terrorist camps, enemy missile sites, suspected caches of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons and other potentially urgent threats, military officials say. If fielded, it would be the only nonnuclear weapon designed for rapid strikes against targets thousands of miles away and would add to the United States' options when considering a pre-emptive attack. Gen. James E. Cartwright, the chief of the United States Strategic Command, said the system would enhance the Pentagon's ability to "pre-empt conventionally" and precisely while limiting the "collateral damage." The program would cost an estimated half a billion dollars over five years, and the Pentagon is seeking $127 million in its current spending request to Congress to begin work. But the plan has run into resistance from lawmakers who are concerned that it may increase the risk of an accidental nuclear confrontation. The Trident II missile that would be used for the attacks is a system that has long been equipped with a nuclear payload. Indeed, both nonnuclear and nuclear-tipped variants of the Trident II missile would be loaded on the same submarines under the Pentagon plan. "There is great concern this could be destabilizing in terms of deterrence and nuclear policy," said Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It would be hard to determine if a missile coming out a Trident submarine is conventional or nuclear." Reflecting the worry that Russia and other nations might misinterpret the launch of a nonnuclear Trident as the opening salvo in a nuclear barrage, lawmakers have insisted that the Bush administration present a plan to minimize that risk before the new weapon is manufactured and deployed. The program to develop a conventional version of the Trident II missile was foreshadowed in the Nuclear Posture Review, a classified study the Pentagon carried out in 2001. The study urged that nonnuclear systems be added to the existing triad of long-range nuclear air, land and sea forces — a concept that the military nicknamed "Global Strike." The Strategic Command, which oversees the long-range nuclear weapons in the United States arsenal, was given the responsibility to figure out a way to develop such a capability. In 2004, General Cartwright, a Marine officer, was appointed to head the command. In looking for a new weapon, General Cartwright said, his goal was a nonnuclear system that could respond to a threat in no more than an hour, including the time that would be needed to secure the president's authorization to attack. "We have laid out in the construct the idea of an hour," General Cartwright said in an interview. Neither bombers nor cruise missiles met General Cartwright's requirement because he reasoned that the threat might emerge in a region where the United States lacked bases or had few or no forces. It can take days for the United States to move aircraft and ships into a crisis zone and position them to strike. Bombers can attack remote targets from the United States or bases abroad, but it takes many hours to conduct such a mission. So the Strategic Command developed a plan to fit conventional warheads on existing Trident II ballistic missiles. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has wholeheartedly supported the idea, and the Pentagon wants to field the system in two years. In justifying the program to lawmakers, General Cartwright outlined a number of potential situations. "The argument for doing it is that there are instances, fairly rare, when time is so critical that if you can't strike in an hour or so you are going to miss that opportunity," said Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett, the Maryland Republican who is chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Projection Forces and who is still weighing whether to support the plan. One possible situation, Mr. Bartlett said, would be "people putting together some terrorist weapon, and while they are putting it together we can take it out, and if we miss that opportunity it may show up on the streets of New York City or Washington, D.C." Still another might involve the need to destroy an enemy missile equipped with a chemical, biological or nuclear warhead before an adversary can launch it at the United States or its allies. Another would be fresh intelligence about a meeting of terrorists. Given the considerable American military presence in Iraq, Afghanistan and South Korea, some critics say the circumstances in which a target may be beyond the reach of American warplanes or armed Predator drones are few indeed. Acquiring the sort of precise intelligence that would give the president enough confidence to order the launch of a ballistic missile within an hour might also be a daunting proposition. General Cartwright said that the weapon would give the president an option to respond quickly to the sort of immediate dangers that are most likely to become more common in the 21st century without taking the drastic step of resorting to a nuclear-armed ballistic missile. A major issue, however, is whether the Pentagon will prepare for new threats at the risk of aggravating old nuclear risks. Under the Pentagon plan, each Trident submarine would carry two of the nonnuclear Trident II missiles along with 22 nuclear-armed Trident missiles. Each of the nonnuclear missiles would carry four nonexplosive warheads. Two types of warheads would be developed. One type would be a metal slug that would land with such tremendous force it could smash a building. The other type of warhead would be a flechette bomb, which would disperse tungsten rods to destroy vehicles and less well-protected targets over a broader area. As currently configured, the weapon would not have the capability to destroy facilities that are buried deeply underground. The system would use satellite tracking to improve its accuracy. General Cartwright asserted that a test demonstrated that a nonnuclear version of the missile could fly thousands of miles and deliver its payload just five yards away from its target. Two former defense secretaries, James R. Schlesinger and Howard Brown, weighed in with an op-ed article last week in The Washington Post, urging the Congress to support the system. The worry about Russia centers on whether that country could distinguish the launch of a Trident II from a nuclear strike, especially since its early warning network has deteriorated since the collapse of the Soviet Union. There is also some concern about China, which has a meager capability to detect incoming ballistic missiles. "For nations like China that have a developing capability and are not totally blind but can see just a little, what would you see?" Mr. Bartlett asked. "We need to be cognizant of the potential for people to misunderstand what they would see." The Senate Armed Services Committee has insisted that the administration report on how it would mitigate such risks before money can be spent to manufacture or deploy the missiles. In a parallel move, the House Armed Services Committee has asked Mr. Rumsfeld to report on discussions that have been held with other nations on this issue and to provide a detailed explanation of how the weapons would be used. The House committee also sought to slow the program by cutting most of the funds sought for the research and development of the new warhead. General Cartwright said a number of measures could be taken to reduce the risk of miscalculation. One step would be to notify Russia and other nations when the United States launched a conventional Trident II missile. Another, he said, would be allowing foreign nations to monitor tests of the system. "We are going to put a target area in the ocean so people can actually see what it looks like when it hits the earth and don't confuse this with a mushroom cloud," he said. General Cartwright said the United States was examining whether the missile could be launched from parts of the ocean that would not put the missile on a trajectory toward Russian territory. The United States has also pushed for an American-Russian center where early warning data could be shared. But the talks over that proposal are bogged down. Arms control experts are divided over the wisdom of the plan. Steve Andreasen, a former defense specialist for the National Security Council, said the program would undermine American security by eliminating the taboo about the use of long-range missiles and diverting funds from other pressing defense needs. "Long-range ballistic missiles have never been used in combat in 50 years," Mr. Andreasen said. "Once the U.S. starts signaling that it views these missiles as no different than any other weapon, other nations will adopt the same logic." Bruce Blair, the president of the World Security Institute and a former Minuteman missile launch control officer, said the weapon would continue a welcome trend toward substituting conventional weapons for nuclear systems, assuming that adequate safeguards can be worked out to avoid the risk of inadvertent nuclear confrontation. "They make a lot more sense than 14 subs loaded to the gills with nuclear-armed Trident missiles in this day and age," Mr. Blair said. The Russians, for their part, seem to have little interest in facilitating Congressional approval of a new American weapons system. During his recent trip to Russia, General Cartwright sought to explain the rationale for program to Gen. Yuri Baluyevski, the chief of the Russian General Staff. "The things that I tried to talk to him about were the common issues that we face — the fact that terrorists and organizations are getting capabilities that are significant and are likely to stay on a trend that could be associated with weapons of mass destruction," General Cartwright said. After that discussion, General Baluyevski continued to stir up opposition to the plan. "As our American colleagues often tell us, these missiles could be used to kill bin Laden," he told reporters earlier this month. "This could be a costly move which not only won't guarantee his destruction but could provoke an irreversible response from a nuclear-armed state which can't determine what warhead is fitted on the missile." -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- justice Gonzales Gone Wild by Mark Anderson, May 29, 2006 Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/orig/anderson.php?articleid=9057 On Feb. 6, 2006, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales launched a convoluted attack on the Fourth Amendment before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This assault on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment is, in my estimation, the biggest leap forward for totalitarianism in this country. The following is an excerpt from Alberto Gonzales' Fourth Amendment catechism (emphasis mine): "Finally, the NSA's terrorist surveillance program fully complies with the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment has never been understood to require warrants in all circumstances. The Supreme Court has upheld warrantless searches at the border and has allowed warrantless sobriety checkpoints. See, e.g., Michigan v. Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990); see also Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 44 (2000) (stating that 'the Fourth Amendment would almost certainly permit an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist attack'). Those searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment because they involve 'special needs' beyond routine law enforcement. Vernonia Sch. Dist. v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653 (1995). To fall within the 'special needs' exception to the warrant requirement, the purpose of the search must be distinguishable from ordinary general crime control. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001); City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 41 (2000). "The terrorist surveillance program fits within this 'special needs' category. This conclusion is by no means novel. During the Clinton Administration, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before Congress in 1994 that the president has inherent authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence searches of the private homes of U.S. citizens in the United States without a warrant, and that such warrantless searches are permissible under the Fourth Amendment. See 'Amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Hearings Before the House Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence,' 103d Cong. 2d Sess. 61, 64 (1994) (statement of Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick). See also In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d at 745-46. "The key question under the Fourth Amendment is not whether there was a warrant, but whether the search was reasonable. Determining the reasonableness of a search for Fourth Amendment purposes requires balancing privacy interests with the government's interests and ensuring that we maintain appropriate safeguards. United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118- 19 (2001). Although the terrorist surveillance program may implicate substantial privacy interests, the government's interest in protecting our nation is compelling. Because the need for the program is reevaluated every 45 days and because of the safeguards and oversight, the al-Qaeda intercepts are reasonable." The above statement from Alberto Gonzales is breathtaking. Notice how he never says the "terrorist" surveillance program satisfies the Fourth Amendment's probable cause provision. Instead, he says it passes the neoconservative "reasonableness" standard. Then, he uses three different types of examples that satisfy the probable cause requirement to imply that the Fourth Amendment doesn't really say what it says about probable cause. Although I do question the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints, a sobriety checkpoint on a public road is still different from invading the privacy of one's house, or eavesdropping on a phone conversation. Sobriety checkpoints are considered constitutional not just because they pass a "reasonableness" standard, but, because they are on public roads, they satisfy the entire Fourth Amendment. Gonzales then uses the example of FISA searches. It is important to understand that evidence obtained from a FISA search cannot be used in a criminal prosecution, precisely because the FISA standard doesn't meet the probable cause threshold of the Fourth Amendment. The evidence can only be used for narrow purposes, such as deportation of a foreign intelligence operative. So, yes, FISA searches don't meet the probable cause threshold, but that is exactly why they can't be used to obtain evidence for criminal prosecutions. The probable cause threshold is satisfied, since it isn't violated. Notice the eclectic examples Gonzales uses. He fuses together "special needs" law enforcement operations with counterintelligence operations. This is a very dangerous comparison. Making counterintelligence operations part of "special needs" law enforcement programs is a calculus to use FISA-type searches for crime control. Gonzales then repeats his view that the Fourth Amendment doesn't require probable cause and warrants. The search only has to be "reasonable," pursuant to the arbitrary discretion of government agents. He then cites United States v. Knights. I have to wonder if he has ever read that decision, since the Supreme Court didn't rule against Knights because the search only passed the "reasonableness" standard. The search satisfied the probable cause threshold because Knights was on probation! He was subject to warrantless searches as part of his sentence. Would it be constitutional for the government to execute all of us, since Ted Bundy was constitutionally executed? Or would it be okay for the government to force all of us to submit to urinalysis testing because people on probation have to? The "reasonableness" standard is a neoconservative invention. None of the examples Gonzales cited give the Bush administration a detour around the probable cause threshold. Not all searches must meet the probable cause threshold, but all searches must satisfy the probable cause threshold. Gonzales doesn't even pretend that the NSA's program satisfies the entire Fourth Amendment. Instead, he says searches only need to satisfy a "reasonableness" standard. To fully appreciate the significance of the Bush administration's assault on the Fourth Amendment, one should place this in a historical context. For King George III's deputies to enforce his laws, Parliament passed the Writs of Assistance Act. Writs of assistance were warrants so general that they allowed the king's agents to go wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted, for whatever reason they wanted. Writs of assistance were basically licenses for the king's men to oppress the colonists. It was the writs of assistance that spawned the Revolutionary War. The Founding Fathers prevailed in the war against the Crown. The Founders gave us the Bill of Rights, which includes the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment condemns the concept of general warrants. Fast-forward 230 years: King George W. Bush is surpassing George III, by attacking the concept of needing any type of warrant. Do we really want federal agents to go wherever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want, with impunity? The usual refrain I hear from neoconservatives is that we shouldn't be concerned about what the government is doing unless we are doing something wrong. I say the government shouldn't be concerned about what we are doing unless we are doing something wrong. If somebody is engaged in criminal activity, why can't an official say this under oath? Consider all of the statutes on the books. Are there no statutes that violate our rights? Perhaps some people do have a legitimate need to hide illegal activity – i.e., illegal activity that shouldn't be illegal. Also, are there no legal activities that should be private? Would you trust your neighbors having the power to invite themselves inside of your house whenever they wished? Why would you trust somebody with that same power just because they work for the government? As Paul Craig Roberts pointedly asks, "Why, if only evildoers have anything to fear from government, the Founding Fathers bothered to write the Constitution?" -------- POLITICS -------- propaganda wars Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV' By Andrew Buncombe in Washington Published: 29 May 2006 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article621189.ece Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies' products. Investigators from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are seeking information about stations across the country after a report produced by a campaign group detailed the extraordinary extent of the use of such items. The report, by the non-profit group Centre for Media and Democracy, found that over a 10-month period at least 77 television stations were making use of the faux news broadcasts, known as Video News Releases (VNRs). Not one told viewers who had produced the items. "We know we only had partial access to these VNRs and yet we found 77 stations using them," said Diana Farsetta, one of the group's researchers. "I would say it's pretty extraordinary. The picture we found was much worse than we expected going into the investigation in terms of just how widely these get played and how frequently these pre-packaged segments are put on the air." Ms Farsetta said the public relations companies commissioned to produce these segments by corporations had become increasingly sophisticated in their techniques in order to get the VNRs broadcast. "They have got very good at mimicking what a real, independently produced television report would look like," she said. The FCC has declined to comment on the investigation but investigators from the commission's enforcement unit recently approached Ms Farsetta for a copy of her group's report. The range of VNR is wide. Among items provided by the Bush administration to news stations was one in which an Iraqi-American in Kansas City was seen saying "Thank you Bush. Thank you USA" in response to the 2003 fall of Baghdad. The footage was actually produced by the State Department, one of 20 federal agencies that have produced and distributed such items. Many of the corporate reports, produced by drugs manufacturers such as Pfizer, focus on health issues and promote the manufacturer's product. One example cited by the report was a Hallowe'en segment produced by the confectionery giant Mars, which featured Snickers, M&Ms and other company brands. While the original VNR disclosed that it was produced by Mars, such information was removed when it was broadcast by the television channel - in this case a Fox-owned station in St Louis, Missouri. Bloomberg news service said that other companies that sponsored the promotions included General Motors, the world's largest car maker, and Intel, the biggest maker of semi-conductors. All of the companies said they included full disclosure of their involvement in the VNRs. "We in no way attempt to hide that we are providing the video," said Chuck Mulloy, a spokesman for Intel. "In fact, we bend over backward to make this disclosure." The FCC was urged to act by a lobbying campaign organised by Free Press, another non-profit group that focuses on media policy. Spokesman Craig Aaron said more than 25,000 people had written to the FCC about the VNRs. "Essentially it's corporate advertising or propaganda masquerading as news," he said. "The public obviously expects their news reports are going to be based on real reporting and real information. If they are watching an advertisement for a company or a government policy, they need to be told." The controversy over the use of VNRs by television stations first erupted last spring. At the time the FCC issued a public notice warning broadcasters that they were obliged to inform viewers if items were sponsored. The maximum fine for each violation is $32,500 (£17,500). -------- us politics Only 3% of Americans Fully Trust Congress May 29, 2006 (Angus Reid Global Scan) http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12039 Few adults in the United States have complete confidence in the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, according to a poll by Zogby Interactive. Only three per cent of respondents express a high level of trust in Congress. Only seven per cent of respondents hold total confidence in corporate leaders, and 11 per cent feel the same way about the media. The president and the courts were next on the list, with 24 per cent and 29 per cent respectively. Conversely, 75 per cent of respondents have a high level of confidence in their friends and co-workers. In the November 2004 congressional ballot, the Republican Party elected 232 lawmakers to the House of Representatives, while the Democratic Party secured 202 seats. The Republicans also have a majority in the Senate, with 55 members in the 100-seat upper house. George W. Bush—a Republican—earned a second four-year term in the November 2004 presidential election. American voters will renew the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate on Nov. 7. Polling Data How Americans rate the trustworthiness of select groups. The scale includes High (4+5), Medium (3) and Low (1+2). High Medium Low Not sure Congress 3% 20% 76% -- Corporate Leaders 7% 23% 69% 1% Media 11% 31% 58% -- President 24% 7% 69% -- The Courts 29% 38% 33% 1% Friends and co-workers 75% 21% 4% 1% Source: Zogby Interactive Methodology: Online interviews with 8,175 American adults, conducted from Apr. 18 to Apr. 24, 2006. Margin of error is 1.1 per cent.