NucNews July 12, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR Scientist assails N-energy plan Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - Bangor Daily News http://www.bangornews.com/news/templates/?a=137226 ORONO - In an effort to raise public opposition to a Bush administration nuclear energy proposal pending before Congress, members of Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Union of Concerned Scientists and other groups are speaking up in Maine and other states. Dr. Edwin Lyman, senior staff scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C., spoke Tuesday morning at the University of Maine, arguing against the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership initiative, or GNEP. GNEP proposes the recycling of spent nuclear fuel to retrieve usable amounts of uranium and plutonium, which can be used to generate additional power. The initiative calls for the construction of at least one reprocessing facility somewhere in the U.S. and would establish a program under which the United States or its allies would provide uranium to fuel other countries' nuclear power plants and then retrieve the waste for reprocessing. With the proposed Yucca Mountain central storage site in Nevada tied up in political knots for the foreseeable future, proponents say GNEP will take pressure off the seemingly intractable problem of storing radioactive nuclear waste by reducing the space needed for storage. A centrally located reprocessing facility would enable stockpiles of waste - such as that currently stored at the site of the former Maine Yankee plant in Wiscasset - to be removed for reprocessing and then stored permanently. By bringing the international supply of reactor fuel and waste under the control of the U.S. and its allies, they argue, the potential for environmental accidents or terrorist attacks would be diminished. Speaking to a small audience of about a dozen people, Lyman refuted all these claims, calling the initiative "extremely dangerous" and predicting that its passage would lead to "chaos in the issue of managing nuclear waste." Nonradioactive plutonium gleaned through reprocessing would be much easier for terrorists to obtain than plutonium currently tied up in bulky, radioactive nuclear waste assemblies, he argued. Funding for the initiative would take money away not only from research into alternative fuel sources but also from health care, education and other human services. And a provision to give the energy department the authority to identify appropriate sites for reprocessing facilities could force communities to store dangerous nuclear waste indefinitely, he said. Maine could potentially become the unwilling host to a reprocessing plant as well as all the nuclear waste produced in New England, Lyman said. "Any state that's politically weak could be ganged up on by stronger neighbors and forced to take spent fuel," he said. He said GNEP reflects the Bush administration's commitment to supporting the growth of nuclear energy in the U.S. and called on Maine's moderate Republican senators to help defeat the initiative. Staff at the Washington offices of Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins indicated that it is too early in the debate to know what form the final legislation might take but that both senators would be studying the issue carefully. Snowe issued the following statement: "Having led the charge to defeat the potential placement of a second national nuclear repository in Maine in the 1980s, I will unequivocally oppose any legislation that could open up the State of Maine to either a nuclear fuel reprocessing site or an interim storage facility." Collins said, "I would vigorously oppose any effort to store outside waste in Maine. I will also continue to push the federal government to ensure that the waste that we have currently is removed from Maine in a safe and secure manner." The initiative is supported by the nuclear energy industry. A spokeswoman from the Nuclear Energy Institute said Tuesday, "GNEP... is a potential means of controlling proliferation and providing safe, reliable and economical energy to developing countries while reducing the increased emission of greenhouse gases produced by other forms of energy." Tuesday marked Lyman's third Maine presentation in as many days. He spoke on Sunday at the University of Southern Maine and on Monday at the University of Maine at Augusta. Sponsors of his speaking tour included Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Sierra Club, the American Lung Association and Peace Action Maine, as well as the University of Maine's Department of Environmental Science. -------- britain Nuclear Future - Marketing and PR July 12, 2006 Potential Energy, UK http://www.potentialenergyuk.com/?p=68 Great! So the government announced that nuclear will be part of the future energy mix. Apart from all of the issues Caspar and Kat have raised, the one thing that concerns me most is… Marketing and PR. Like it or not ‘nuclear power’ doesn’t elicit the most positive response from the vast majority of people. One of the biggest problems getting new reactors built won’t be finding investors, making up the skills gap nor even working out what to do with the waste. The biggest obstacle blocking the way of a nuclear future is ‘the average citizen’. Forget the huge undertaking involved in designing the reactors, choosing where they should be built, sourcing workers and materials, just getting the local population to agree to the planning permission is going to be beyond difficult. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating, before I started on this project I had an open mind about nuclear power, but was most definitely leaning towards the ‘anti’ side. I had all of the same thoughts and fears that most people do. ‘Nuclear power is dangerous’ ‘Nuclear power is unsafe’ ‘If attacked by terrorists, nuclear power plants can explode and kill millions’ ‘Radiation is the most dangerous thing on the planet’ ‘Chernobyl could happen here’ Unlike a huge percentage of the population, however, I don’t “fear” science. I don’t believe that scientists are trying to ‘pull a fast one’ on us. I don’t believe that they are part of one secret cabal or another which is trying to poison, brainwash or otherwise incapacitate the human race. I don’t even believe that all of them are glasses-wearing nerds with severe social-intereaction problems. Consequently, I feel I’ve been able to take the information about nuclear power produced by scientists and not put any kind of internal spin on it. I’ve been looking at anti-nuclear literature with a considerably more critical eye than I ever have before and, apart from some sociological concerns, I think they’ve got a lot wrong over the years. So what can be done to counteract half a century’s worth of anti-nuclear proselytising? Here’s my Seven Steps To A Happy Nuclear Future… First, I’d look into George Lakoff and his work on reframing the political debate in the US. The anti-nuclear lobby historically has been very good at making everyone terrified of nuclear - and when we were on the edge of blowing each other up, that wasn’t a bad thing at all- but the fear has become so ingrained that simply the word ‘nuclear’ provokes a terrified Pavlovian response in most people. The pro-nuclear lobby needs to learn that ‘facts won’t set you free’. Most people don’t seem to care about facts. They care about what they ‘believe’. That’s why repeatedly telling someone that the annual radiation dose from the nuclear power industry is lower than a two week holiday in Cornwall doesn’t matter one iota. They hear the word ‘nuclear’ and back they are in 1984 preparing themselves for nuclear holocaust. You’ve got to work very hard to change that. Lakoff knows what he’s doing though. Second, you’ve got to work on the names. “Fast Breeder Reactor”? That scares me shitless. It sounds like some kind of self-replicating radioactive mobile power plant which will take over the world and turn it all to dust within days. “Magnox” surely is the name of the Leader of the Robot Army that will invade and take over the Earth. Lose it. “Pebble Bed Reactor”, however, is a rather more lovely name. Makes me think of some kind of treatment I’d get at the Spa at the Sanderson Hotel that would get rid of my cellulite and take a couple inches off my waist. Keep that name. The women will go for that one. Third, use the word ‘nuclear’ less and use the word ‘fission’ more. There aren’t any inherent negatives associated with the word ‘fission’. If you can throw ‘quantum’ in, too, that’ll help. People like the word ‘quantum’ for some reason. ‘Nano’, as well. Not sure how you can work that one in, but you guys are clever, you could work out a way. Fourth, gather together knowledgeable women to put forward for media interviews about the nuclear industry. People trust women more, just make sure they aren’t that severe female-politician-in-powersuit-and-high-heels type. They’re scarier than ‘fast breeder reactors’. Fifth, stop putting photos of people in hard hats and hi-vis jackets on your websites (BNFL and UKAEA). It’s not aspirational enough. Hell, it’s not aspirational at all. I once spent two months wearing a hard hat and hi-vis every day - it’s not a look I ever want to repeat. You need to have more families. More nature. More blue skies and sunshine. I also don’t want to see another bloody photo of smiling middle managers looking at reactor plans. Pleeease? Sixth, paint the reactor stacks sky blue. They are ugly. Make them pretty. Look: Natural gas storage tanks unpainted and scary looking. Natural gas storage tanks painted and a photo of them for sale because they are so pretty. Never, ever, ever decide to have designs painted on the stacks instead. That’s vulgar. Keep them sky blue to remind everyone of how they are helping to clean the skies. Seventh, resist inventing an atom-themed kid-friendly character to help teach kids about nuclear power - “Hey, kids! It’s Adam the Atom here to tell you ALL about fissle isotopes!”. That’s just crap. Ultimately though, it’s going to be incredibly difficult to change nuclear power’s image. But it’s possible… and it’s necessary. And you need to start now. ---- UK Short cut to boost wind and nuclear power By George Jones and Charles Clover (Filed: 12/07/2006) UK Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/12/nener12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/07/12/ixuknews.html Your view: Is the Government right to embrace wind farms? Fast-track planning laws will be introduced to speed the development of new nuclear power stations and onshore wind farms despite fierce objections from environmental campaigners and local people, the Government announced yesterday. The long-awaited energy review gave the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations, which it claimed could make a "significant contribution" to securing energy needs for the next generation. Alistair Darling, the Industry Secretary, told MPs the Government wanted a mixture of clean, low-carbon energy sources that would include more renewable power generated by wind farms, wave and solar schemes. Measures were also unveiled to reduce demand for electricity, including phasing out inefficient consumer goods and limiting the time television sets and other products could be left on standby. But it was confirmation of support for nuclear power that caused the most argument, even though Tony Blair said in May - pre-empting the review - that nuclear was back on the agenda "with a vengeance". The 216-page review, The Energy Challenge, said the economics of nuclear as a source of low-carbon generation had improved. Mr Darling told MPs it would be for the private sector to "initiate, fund, construct and operate" nuclear plants and cover the cost of decommissioning and meet "their full share" of dealing with nuclear waste. But he admitted private firms would not invest without "fundamental reform" of the planning process to prevent objectors stringing out public inquiries for months on end by arguing whether nuclear power was needed. "We will be acting to ensure that energy companies, whether seeking to build gas storage facilities, wind farms or any other kind of large energy installation, are not faced with costly uncertainties and delay," Mr Darling said. "Local concerns about specific sites must be taken into consideration but the right balance has to be struck with the national need for our vital energy infrastructure." The most recently built nuclear power station, Sizewell B, in Suffolk, took more than six years to secure planning permission. But only 30 of the 340 inquiry days were devoted to local issues. The Government proposes to issue a clear statement highlighting the "strategic national need" for new power stations which will have to be balanced against local views at planning inquiries. They are likely to be built at the sites of existing nuclear stations to limit planning objections. Streamlined planning rules are proposed for small-scale wind turbines on homes and for 200 applications for wind farms, which are highly contentious because of their visual impact on rural landscapes and danger to birds. While Mr Blair has been the driving force behind the decision to back nuclear power, he chose to show his support for more wind power. On a boat trip yesterday to an offshore windfarm off the north Kent coast, he said: "If we're going to develop technologies for the future, we've got to make sure we're encouraging more than this." He admitted that he had changed his mind on nuclear power because of climate change and the fact that Britain was going to move from being self-sufficient in basic energy to becoming a big importer. "We have to at least replace our nuclear power stations," he said. "These decisions have to be taken now. Fifteen years down the line we have got high energy prices and real problems." David Cameron, the Conservative leader, who has been given permission to install a wind turbine on his London home, urged the Government to kick-start a "revolution" in green power. He said measures should be taken to allow demand for renewable energy to "explode" and nuclear power should be used only as a "last resort". Mr Darling said Britain would need substantial new electricity generation over the next 20 years because of the closure of coal and nuclear plants equivalent to about a third of today's capacity. Coal played an important part in energy security, but to have a long-term future its heavy carbon emissions would have be tackled. The review spelled out the advantage of tidal generation, in particular plans for a Severn Barrage, which could provide five per cent of electricity demand by 2020. Mr Darling faced criticism from opposition MPs, who claimed taxpayers would have to subsidise nuclear power while future generations would have to pay for the cost of dealing with nuclear waste. Stephen Tindale, the executive director of Greenpeace, said: "Tony Blair is fixated with getting new nuclear power stations built, and that means anything substantial in this review that supports clean green energy will be fatally undermined as long as Blair remains Prime Minister." ---- MPs press over nuclear subsidies Some Labour MPs are suspicious of the subsidy claims Wednesday, 12 July 2006 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5171800.stm Ministers face increasing questions over claims new nuclear power stations will be funded by the industry itself. Industry secretary Alastair Darling says any investment in replacing nuclear capacity will be funded by the private sector, rather than government. However, a stream of Labour MPs fear ministers may offer subsidies to the industry, particularly if it gets into financial difficulties. Mr Darling says nuclear power is needed to help meet future UK energy needs. 'Significant contribution' He gave the go-ahead for a new wave of nuclear power stations during his statement to MPs on Tuesday. Nuclear power accounts for 20% of the UK's electricity, but that is due to fall to 6% as all but one of the ageing plants shut down over the next 20 years. Mr Darling said new nuclear power stations could make a "significant contribution" to meeting the UK's energy goals over the next 30 to 40 years. He said: "It will be for the private sector to initiate, fund, construct and operate new nuclear plants and cover the cost of decommissioning and their full share of long-term waste management costs." However, Elliot Morley, who was a minister in the Department of the Environment when the last Energy Review came out in 2003, was sceptical. He said he welcomed Mr Darling's "very clear statement" that there "will be no public subsidies". Labouring the point? "But you well know, as I do, that there's been a history of nuclear sectors going bankrupt over the years," he said. "Would you consider asking for a bond on new investment to cover that decommissioning and nuclear waste charges?" Mr Darling said problems in the past were caused by people who failed to make the right calculations. Labour left-winger Jeremy Corbyn pressed a little further: "Can you assure the House that there is going to be no subsidy whatsoever for the nuclear industry in the construction, operation or waste management or disposal as a result of this white paper?" Mr Darling said he had answered this point and suggested the MP look at the Energy Review. 'Unequivocal answer' needed Labour's Rob Marris wanted an assurance that there would be no "indirect subsidies" given, such as guaranteed prices, purchases or insurance cover. The minister said there would be no guaranteed prices, although EU rules required some insurance. The SNP's Michael Weir wanted an "unequivocal answer": "Does a 'full share' of the long term waste costs mean 100% - yes or no?" Mr Darling said he had nothing to add to what he had said in his statement to MPs. Labour's Gordon Prentice asked if the private sector would bear the whole cost of private security at nuclear plants. Mr Darling replied: "I said that anyone coming forward with proposals to build nuclear power stations has to be responsible for meeting the costs of building, operating, maintaining and the decommissioning." ---- Nuclear power is 'colossal mistake' says Livingstone Publisher: Ian Morgan 12/07/2006 24dash.com http://www.24dash.com/news/58/8016/index.htm The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, has slammed the outcome of the Government's energy review. He said: "It is a colossal mistake to head off down the nuclear path once again. We need a solution to the climate change that protects the environment rather than threatens it, and one that does not literally cost the earth. "Nothing in the review leads me to change my mind that commissioning a new generation of nuclear will be a huge waste of precious time and money, and a real diversion from the critical task of cutting carbon emissions. There is widespread opposition amongst Londoners to nuclear power and the movement of nuclear waste around the capital. "There is not a country in the world that has managed to build a nuclear power station without considerable public subsidy. In Britain we've never managed to build one to budget. That's before taking into account the huge costs of dealing with radioactive waste – now estimated by the Treasury at £90bn. It stretches credulity to suggest that the private sector will be now be able to deliver commercially viable nuclear power without subsidy from the public purse. "Equally the Review does nothing to demonstrate that nuclear power will make any real impact on tackling climate change. New nuclear will be on too small a scale to make any real impact on cutting carbon emissions, and even with fast-track planning procedures won't make any contribution for the next decade and a half. But it will consume vast resources and huge amounts of political capital – all of which could have been better spent on reducing energy demand through improved efficiency and decentralising generation, and by a major increase in renewable energy investment. "Global warming is the single biggest problem humanity has to solve. We no longer have the time to make mistakes like this. The government had a real chance to put Britain at the forefront of tackling climate change and it gives me no pleasure to say that it has failed to take it." ---- UK Nuclear Focus May Boost Emissions - Green Groups Story by Nick Trevethan REUTERS UK: July 12, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/37203/newsDate/12-Jul-2006/story.htm LONDON - A decision by the UK government to build new nuclear power plants will increase pressure on uranium reserves and the need to process lower grades will cause greenhouse gas emissions, environmental groups said on Tuesday. A spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair said ahead of an energy policy review on Tuesday that Britain would have to build new nuclear plants as part of a strategy to fight global warming and keep the lights burning. But with the price of uranium already soaring and plans to build over 120 new nuclear power plants around the world over the next 10 years, the economics and emissions benefits of nuclear energy may be in doubt, green groups said. "Although we may not run out of uranium altogether, we could quickly run out high-grade, easily exploitable uranium," Roger Higman, campaign co-ordinator at Friends of the Earth, said. He referred to studies showing that once high-grade uranium ore bodies had been exploited, lower-grade reserves would require a massive energy input to convert into fuel. "That would affect the greenhouse impact of the nuclear sector and would make nuclear energy much more expensive." Uranium prices have risen from US$8-10/lb four years ago to US$45.50 this week, according to US uranium consultancy UxC, and may head even higher. "The key question is whether the high prices of uranium reflect a medium-term imbalance in supply and demand or whether this is a fundamental issue to do with dwindling reserves of uranium," Keith Allott, of environmental group WWF, said. "High prices are likely to be a major factor in the economics of new nuclear plants. If the world embraces nuclear power as a so-called solution to climate change, we need to grapple with the fact that uranium is a finite resource." INVESTMENT NEEDED Soaring oil prices and international attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have thrown the spotlight back onto nuclear energy. Proponents of nuclear energy say plenty of uranium is available, but the extended period of low prices has deterred investment in new mines. "What is needed is new mine production, and at these prices there are huge profits available for miners so production will be strongly stimulated," Steve Kidd, director of strategy and research at the World Nuclear Association, said. "The lead times for a uranium mine and nuclear reactor are about the same, so new mine capacity will come on stream at the same sort of time that the reactors come on." He said the UK could see its first new reactors by 2015 at the earliest. World uranium consumption is running at around 65,000 tonnes per year, while production is 41,000-42,000. The shortfall is made up from stockpiles held by utility companies and down-blended weapons-grade uranium. A typical reactor consumes about 200 tonnes of uranium per year, but requires an initial charge of around 600-800 tonnes. "Fuel prices don't affect nuclear energy economics. Fuel costs represent only a small component of the overall costs. Even if prices double it would remain a single digit percentage of the total cost," a source in the nuclear industry said. "The miners are happy with these prices and there is little pressure from the utilities to push them down either." ---- Blair’s Energy Review: Save the Nuclear Industry Wednesday, 12 July 2006, 8:23 am Press Release: Greenpeace http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0607/S00218.htm Blair’s Energy Review: Save the Nuclear Industry, Destroy the Climate London, U.K., July 11 2006 – Greenpeace warned today that the UK Government’s Energy Review published today will neither solve Britain’s energy problems nor help meet its commitment to reduce carbon emissions. The energy review offered an opportunity to transform the energy system in the UK. Instead, Tony Blair's continued obsession with nuclear power has overridden the UK's clean energy revolution. The planning process is streamlined in favour of building new nuclear power stations with no guarantee of a Parliamentary vote. The only thing that is guaranteed is that the Government will deliver a nuclear White Paper before the end of the year - before the "consultation" on decentralised energy will even be complete. The review touches on decentralised energy (DE) schemes and renewables. Two-thirds of the energy generated in most UK power stations is lost in the form of heat up smokestacks or cooling water pumped into the sea, but DE projects capture that heat and use it, giving massive savings in efficiency. However, these and other initiatives on renewables are undermined by a new nuclear reactor program, which is based upon large centralized power. One consequence of a large new nuclear program is that clean and efficient technologies will be starved of political support and funds. "Tony Blair is fixated with getting new nuclear power stations built, and that means anything substantial in this review that supports clean green energy will be fatally undermined as long as Blair remains Prime Minister,” said Greenpeace UK Executive Director Stephen Tindale. “You can't roll out new nuclear power stations and build widespread sustainable energy projects. The reality is that nuclear sucks up all the money. There is an enormous radioactive cloud hanging over this energy review which threatens to drown any positive moves on decentralised energy, renewables and energy efficiency.” The endorsement for nuclear power flies in the face of the evidence that nuclear power is a failed technology with inherent unavoidable risks, and that it is almost irrelevant in combating carbon emissions. The Government was warned by its own Sustainable Development Commission that new nuclear power could make no contribution to UK carbon reductions before 2020, and even by 2035 its role would be small (1). On a global scale nuclear power provides only 6.4% of primary energy, and 16% global electricity (2). Worldwide nuclear power is declining in terms of its share of the electricity market. To turn around the decline, reactor orders will have to be on a far greater scale than was envisaged in the UK. Just to maintain current capacity, over the next 10 years, 64 new reactors would have to be planned, built and started up by 2015. This is virtually impossible given the long lead times for nuclear power projects (3). “This review is about trying to save the nuclear industry not the climate. Blair and his industry allies are seeking to create a nuclear illusion that new reactors are the solution to energy security and dangerous climate change. The reality is that nuclear power cannot and will not make a significant impact on reducing Co2 emissions. But it is far worse. In the promotion of nuclear power, the real energy solutions to climate change (renewables and energy efficiency) will be marginalised and undermined, while the inherent threats from nuclear power will be increased,” said Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace International. The only reactor under construction in Western Europe, the French designed EPR in Finland, is already 12 months behind schedule, with significant cost over-runs and serious quality control problems affecting the concrete base and reactor vessel. The only other reactor on the drawing board is the same reactor design planned to be built by Electricite de France, EDF, in France. The opposition Socialist Party and Greens are committed to cancelling the project if they take power in March 2007. 1 – The UK Commission for Sustainable Development, “Is Nuclear the Answer ?”, reported in 2006, that “in view of our own majority conclusion, our advice to the government is that there is no justification for bringing forward plans for a new nuclear power programme at this time, and that any such proposal would be incompatible with its own sustainable development strategy. The relatively small contribution that a new nuclear power programme would make to addressing these challenges (even if we were to double our existing nuclear capacity, this would give an 8% cut on total emissions from 1990 levels by 2035, and would contribute next to nothing before 2020) simply doesn’t justify the substantial disbenefits and costs that would be entailed in such a programme.” 2 - Some statistics expose the minor role of nuclear power in energy supply. After a fifty-year program of massive state support, nuclear power represents less than 6.4% of global primary energy supply as calculated by the International Energy Agency (IEA) (see, World Energy Outlook 2005, IEA, Paris p.81) If it is measured on the basis of electricity generated and not the two thirds of the energy generated lost into the environment as waste heat, the figure drops to 2.3% of primary energy. Total electricity generation from renewable sources in 2004 was about 4% of global total, and if large hydro is included it was slightly more than 20%, as compared with about 16% for nuclear. 3 - Over the next 10 years, 82 new replacement reactors would have to start up operation just to maintain the current number of operating plants: 18 of these are under construction. This calculation takes into account the 18 reactors with a firm start-up date out of the 27 units listed as under construction by the IAEA as of June 2004. In other words, another 64 new reactors would have to be planned, built and started up by 2015. This is virtually impossible given the long lead times for nuclear power projects. -------- depleted uranium 'Nuclear' book wins £10,000 prize Wednesday, 12 July 2006 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/5170700.stm The poet and writer Robert Minhinnick has won the £10,000 Wales Book of the Year award, announced in Cardiff. To Babel and Back is partly based in his home town Porthcawl, but also draws on travels to Iraq and Argentina, with nuclear and political themes. The shortlist also included a first novel and a poetry collection. The Welsh language prize, also worth £10,000, was won by Rhys Evans for his biography of Plaid Cymru's first MP Gwynfor Evans, who died in 2005. Neath-born Minhinnick, who is editor of Poetry Wales, said his book was a collection of essays, observations and stories "both real and imagined". It also has a thread of his own personal journey, following depleted uranium to Iraq. One of the more disturbing extracts of the book, which takes in political, nuclear and environmental themes, details a day trip he took to Babylon. He was taken to a bunker where 400 people burned to death after an American smart bomb in the first Gulf war had exploded. Minhinnick thought he saw bats hanging from the ceiling. "After my guides had taken me through the bunker they said those blackened shapes were children's hands," he said. "Parents had held the children up to the ceiling to help them dig for safety from the fire but instead their hands became fused to the burning hot ceiling. "After, they tried to pull the bodies from the bunker but the hands remained stuck to the ceiling." Minhinnick said he was surprised the book even made the shortlist, as the judges had thought it "patchy". He said it was a demanding and difficult book. "But once you start on page one you continue until 200, so it's well worth it," he added. Also nominated were Swedish-born Kitty Sewell for her first novel Ice Trap, and poet Ifor Thomas, who drew on his experience of being treated for prostate cancer. The Welsh language prize was won by BBC Wales journalist Rhys Evans for his biography of Gwynfor Evans, his first book. He said it was sparked by his own "obsession" for the subject, backed up by painstaking research of boxes of papers and letters belonging to the former Carmarthen MP, who died aged 92 in April 2005. But he admitted that being a first-time author had been tough. "Bit of a curate's egg really, at times extremely painful and very tiring, given that I did it as a part-time project in my spare time," he explained. However, he said at times he found it "absolutely exhilarating". Peter Finch, chief executive of the awarding body Academi, said: "The judges' choice for Wales Book of the Year Award 2006 shows the maturity of the literature of Wales by selecting authors at the height of their powers." ---- A Soldier's Heart Then and Now By Chante Wolf Wednesday 12 July 2006 Pulse of the Twin Cities http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=2581 When Richard Saholt joined the Army in 1942, he did so in hopes of proving himself to his father and society. He did, by becoming a sniper, scout, point man and a member of the infamous 10th Mountain Division. The division were ski paratroopers, and Saholt earned the Combat Infantry Badge and Bronze Star. The training alone was the most brutal and rigorous training known in the military. Conducted at an elevation of 10,000 feet, many soldiers couldn’t meet the physical and mental challenges. Later his division fought a fierce battle against the Nazi’s Gothic Line in the Italian Alps during WWII, where 90 percent of the U.S.’s 14,000- member division were wounded or killed. “We destroyed nine of their cracked Alpine Divisions!” he wrote to me. “They were written up in World War II as the finest trained fighters in the world. They were Hitler’s most famous troops!” Saholt’s military accomplishments were set against an unsettling backdrop. Upon enlistment he was diagnosed by the military with chronic undifferentiated schizophrenia and was “one of the most bizarre and genuinely crazy” people they knew. But that document was kept secret from him until 1969. He struggled with the VA to get disability for more than 30 years. Besides his original diagnosis, he returned from combat with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and was discharged from the military for his back and leg injuries. He also suffers from blackouts due to blast concussions. Saholt credits his very life to one of his “voices,” which, during combat, screamed at him to “duck.” Saholt did duck, and the mortar took off the faces of the soldiers next to him. Besides serving in WWII, Saholt also had his own private war. His father served in combat during WWI and was himself an alcoholic with his own violent paranoid schizophrenic outbursts and pedophile behavior. “He was one mean son-of-a-bitch. I’ve got that hatred burning out of me, and it will burn out of me until the day I die,” he wrote. How is Saholt’s story connected to the millions of other war veterans who have served in World War II and since then? What veterans have in common are a few things. First, many veterans joined the military to prove themselves to either their families or society; to leave an abusive situation in their home lives; or because of recruiters’ promises—later known to have been broken. Second, plenty of veterans have members in their families who are or were war veterans, and how they came home—or didn’t come home—affected not only the immediate family, but the rest of society. Third, many veterans joined the military thinking they would get college money and/or job training that could transfer into a good job later. Lastly, many returning war veterans have been denied disability compensation. The Common Thread of PTSD PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) has many names. Buck fever, soldier’s heart, shell-shock, and now PTSD. “The average and healthy individual ... has such an inner and usually unrealized resistance towards killing a fellow man that he will not of his own volition take life if it is possible to turn away from that responsibility ...” says S.L.A. Marshall in Lt. Col. Dave Grossman’s book, “On Killing: The Psychological Costs of Learning to Kill in War and Society.” “At the vital point,” the soldier “becomes a conscientious objector,” Marshall says. PTSD is the normal reaction a human being has to an abnormal, violent, fearful situation or event. Some of the PTSD signs are: suppression of feelings, inability to sleep, nightmares, hyper-alertness, flashbacks, depression, constant thinking about the traumatic event, not wanting to be in large crowds, being by the door for a quick exit, low self-esteem, unable to maintain an intimate relationship, not able to hold down a job, guilt, anger, paranoia, mood swings, excessive usage of alcohol or drugs, inability to concentrate, suicidal thoughts or attempts, and domestic violence. In World War II, “more than 800,000 men were classified 4-F (unfit for military service) due to psychiatric reasons. Despite this effort to weed out those mentally and emotionally unfit for combat, America’s armed forces lost an additional 504,000 men from the fighting effort because of psychiatric collapse—enough to man 50 divisions! At one point in World War II, psychiatric casualties were being discharged from the U.S. Army faster than new recruits were being drafted in.” “Swank and Marchand’s much-cited World War II study determined that after 60 days of continuous combat, 98 percent of all surviving soldiers will have become psychiatric casualties of one kind or another.” “A recent study of soldiers and Marines who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan found that about 17 percent met criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder, depression or generalized anxiety disorder. Of those whose responses were positive for a mental disorder, 40 percent or fewer actually received help while on active duty.” However, I would venture that the numbers are much higher, and many veterans will not show any signs at first, but will later. World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq and all the conflicts, police actions and military interventions since then, have given back to society military veterans who have and will suffer for the rest of their lives from the unseen wounds. Veterans like me call each other the walking dead. And for the Atomic veterans, Agent Orange and Depleted Uranium victims, the VA still fights against the compensation claims, forcing veterans to resubmit numerous times for their compensation. For some like Saholt, it takes more than 30 years. In the meantime, it is the veterans, their families and our society that suffers with them and through them as the wounds come home to fester. For some cases that go untreated, they become the Oklahoma bomber, or like a Gulf war veteran who shot three nurses at Arizona State University, the Washington, D.C., sniper, or like the four husbands at Ft. Bragg who, in one weekend, killed not only their wives, but two also killed themselves. Now, Iraq war veterans who have refused to return to Iraq—such as Pfc. Suzanne Swift—due to sexual assault and other trauma from her first tour, are being treated as if they are criminals. For Swift, the Department of Homeland Security arrived to take her back to her base for AWOL processing. Other current war veterans have been charged with cowardice when they had PTSD reactions to their traumatic situations, thus sending a huge message to other war veterans who are suffering—keep your mouth shut or you will receive a court-martial and be labeled a wimp and traitor to the cause. Even the Marine’s poster boy—the new Marlboro Man you may have seen—is having a very rough time. Only thing is, neither the military nor the White House can give us what exactly that “noble cause” is—as they draft budget cuts for the VA claims from World War II and Korea to make room for the next batch of wounded. So what does that message say to the troops? For folks who slap a yellow “Support Our Troops” magnet on the trunk of your cars—what is this “noble cause”? In what way do you support the troops, and what is it worth for you to do anything about it? Keep in mind that the number of Vietnam veterans who have committed suicide since 1972 is more than the number of those 56,000-plus names on the wall in Washington, D.C. The number of Gulf War I veterans who are on disability is more than 200,000 out of the 690,000 who served, and those numbers are “twice the rate of vets from World War I, Korea and Vietnam.” It is true that the conflicts of today also affect the soldiers of yesterday. It takes its toll because we are all “soldiers with heart.” || Chante Wolf served in the Air Force, 1980-92 and also in the Persian Gulf War I. Contributions were made to this article by (1) “On Killing: The Psychological Costs of Learning to Kill in War and Society” Lt.Col. Comments - Post Comment The comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for its content. A soldiers heart | (Score: 0) by: Anonymous on: Thursday 13 July @ 07:28:07 Keep in mind that the number of Vietnam veterans who have committed suicide since 1972 is more than the number of those 56,000-plus names on the wall in Washington, D.C. RE:A soldiers heart | (Score: 0) by: Anonymous on: Thursday 13 July @ 11:15:17 actually, according to many many sources, the number of suicides among Vietnam War vets are a LOT MORE than 56,000. do some reading and educate yourself. A Soldier''s Heart... by: Anonymous on: Thursday 13 July @ 18:33:54 Bravo Chante! You go girl! If people knew how our troops are treated once they come home, maybe no one would ever enlist... Re: above comments - fyi, originally there were 58,000 names inscribed on The Wall. Also, VA stats showed as of 1979 (the most current records we could obtain in 1981) 110,000 Vietnam Veterans had subsequently "died" and that was just since the Fall of Saigon 4 years prior... true, some succombed to combat wounds but many, too many suicided. Twenty-five years ago we fought for and thought we had won the medical and mental health care our government promised for recognition and treatment of PTSD and Agent Orange related illnesses, and on which our government still hasn't delivered. Gulf War Veterans, ditto. And the new generation of Veterans, those young people returning from our current wars, face even more challenges, while Veteran health services are even further curtailed. So quit nitpickin' at each other and figure out what the heck you can do to help those twice screwed by our government. I say that from the heart. RE:A Soldier by: Anonymous on: Thursday 13 July @ 21:20:50 I was in the 38th MP/CID Detachment 1969-1975. I was assigned to train unit police for the 25th Inf. & 9th Div. Sniper group from Dong Tam. James Hemza was a friend I found and was also a sniper. He killed himself only after he came to Schofield Barraks Hawaii. I cleaned up body parts from a combat soldier who pulled a pin on a box of gernades. I had just impounded his motorbike from. I was shot and stabbed by our own Vietnam Vets. They were trained to kill and they do it well. You do not unlearn this I found out as a MP. They say it is PTSD and I say once a combat soldier always a combat soldier. They truly are brothers in arms and I respect each and every soldier who fought. Bush and our current government better appreciate these facts. Iraq just made a whole new generation of combat soldiers that will come home. Maybe this time lets not spit on them and call them baby killers. All my current freinds hold a Vietnam Combat Infrantry Badge. I have heard their stories and lived with them. Unless you have been there you can not understand. I say send a unit of Phsyciatrist with each company so they can truly see why they are what they are. I honor the ones who fought in any war. But our Government still does not have a clue. All soldiers come home wounded either by combat or in the mind. Lets respect that. GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS! Tom, Silver Bay, MN crying shame by: Anonymous on: Friday 14 July @ 09:24:35 i wasn't around for vietnam. i was too young for desert storm. i was already in a law enforcement career when the Iraq war started. but i will tell you, there are young people who appreciate what our veterans did and what the current soldiers are doing and going through. i have friends over there right now. It is a crying shame how bureaucrats and certain segments of our society treat veterans, but please know there are still multi-millions that love you all and appreciate the sacrifice!! I know i do and teach my young sons to do the same. -------- iran Frustrated World Powers Send Iran to U.N. Jul 12, 2006, 6:49 PM (ET) By ANNE GEARAN (AP) http://rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fapnews.myway.com%2Farticle%2F20060712%2FD8IQNP6O9.html PARIS - Frustrated world powers agreed Wednesday to send Iran before the United Nations Security Council for possible punishment, saying the Iranians had given no sign they would bargain in earnest over their disputed nuclear program. The move amounted to calling Iran's bluff. Diplomats said recent meetings with Iran's nuclear negotiator have gone nowhere and it was clear Tehran hoped to play for time or exploit potential divisions among the six powers that have offered new talks. The United States and other nations wanted Iran to say by Wednesday whether it would meet terms to begin negotiations on a package of economic and energy incentives in exchange for at least a short-term end to Tehran's program to enrich uranium. The Security Council's permanent members said Iranian leaders had had long enough to respond. "The Iranians have given no indication at all that they are ready to engage seriously on the substance of our proposals," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on behalf of the United States, France, Britain, Russia and China, the five permanent Security Council members, plus Germany and the European Union. Though Russia and China signed on to Wednesday's statement, the two traditional commercial partners of Iran previously have opposed imposition of the toughest of sanctions. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed his disappointment with Iran for not responding to the proposals. In a veiled warning that Russia could soften its opposition to sanctions, Lavrov said that if Tehran does not agree to return to negotiations "the Security Council will consider steps appropriate to the situation," the ITAR-Tass news agency reported. If Iran agrees to the group's terms for negotiations, it would mean the first high-level face-to-face talks between the United States and Iran after more than a quarter century of estrangement. The group that met in Paris on Wednesday represents the permanent, veto-holding members of the UN Security Council plus the European participants in previous failed nuclear talks with Iran. Tehran contends its nuclear program is aimed only at producing electricity, but the West fears it is hiding plans to build a bomb. Expressing "profound disappointment," foreign ministers said, "we have no choice but to return to the United Nations Security Council" and resume a course of possible punishment or coercion that the powers had set aside in hopes of reaching a deal. The group was pushing for an agreement before world leaders meet this weekend in Russia for the Group of Eight summit of leading industrial democracies. President Bush and other leaders are now expected to issue a strongly worded rebuke to Iran during the G-8 meeting. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, the Bush administration's chief negotiator on the Iran issue, said the U.S. is pleased by what it called strong action by the Security Council group. "This is a significant decision that frankly reflects the disappointment and frustration of our countries over the lack of a serious response." There was no immediate reaction from Tehran, which has repeatedly said it needs more time to consider proposals presented in early June. Iran had ruled out responding this week to international incentives to suspend disputed portions of its nuclear program. "The indications are that Iran's response has been disappointing and incomplete," Rice had reporters aboard her flight here. Any real move to punish Iran at the Security Council is a long way off, but the group said it will seek an initial resolution requiring Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment. Debate could begin as soon as next week. If Iran does not comply, the group said it would then seek harsher action. The group's short statement give no specifics, but it cited a section of the world body's charter that could open the door to economic or other sanctions. The group said it could stop the Security Council actions at any time should Iran cooperate. The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency has already told Iran it must put uranium enrichment and related disputed activities on hold, and doing so is the condition for opening negotiations on the incentives package presented to Iran last month. Enrichment can produce fuel for a civilian reactor or fissile material for a bomb. The European Union offered Iran a similar package of economic and trade incentives last year, but Iran rejected the proposal and ramped up nuclear activities including uranium enrichment that it had suspended during the European talks. More is on the line now that Iran has moved closer to being able to build a nuclear weapon, and the United States has offered to bargain face-to-face. -------- korea China and Russia introduce rival resolution on North Korean missile Posted 7/12/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-07-12-missile-resolution_x.htm UNITED NATIONS — China and Russia introduced a resolution Wednesday deploring North Korea's missile tests but dropping language from a rival proposal that could have led to military action against Pyongyang. Japan and the United States welcomed the draft but said it had major deficiencies and they would still press for a Security Council vote on their resolution — though no date has been set. The Japanese resolution's supporters have delayed a vote to wait for the outcome of a high-level Chinese visit to North Korea which began on Monday. China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said the delegation, which will return Friday, delivered a message from China's top leaders expressing concern over the missile tests "and also what we considered the North Koreans should do to make diplomacy succeed." "So far we hve not received any feedbacks from the North Korea leadership," he said. Wang confirmed that he had been instructed to veto the Japanese resolution and expressed hope that through negotiations in the next few days "we can find a way and the language that could unify the whole council." He said the Chinese-Russian proposal would calm the situation in northeast Asia and "be beneficial for peace and stability in the region." Wang previously said Beijing objected to three key elements in the Japanese draft: the determination that the missile tests threatened international peace and security, authorizing action under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter which can be enforced militarily, and mandatory sanctions aimed at curbing North Korea's missile and nuclear programs. The Chinese-Russian draft resolution drops these three elements, which Japan and the United States consider crucial. The Chinese-Russian draft "strongly deplores" North Korea's multiple missile launches and calls on Pyongyang to re-establish a moratorium on missile tests. It requests — but does not demand — that all U.N. member states "exercise vigilance in preventing supply of items, materials, goods and technologies that could contribute" to North Korea's missile program. It also calls on all members "not to procure missiles or missile-related items" or technology from the North. By contrast, the much stronger Japanese resolution would ban North Korean missile tests and prevent the reclusive communist nation from acquiring or exporting missiles and missile technology or weapons of mass destruction and their components. It also demands that North Korea immediately stop developing, testing, deploying and selling ballistic missiles. Both resolutions strongly urge the North to immediately return to six-party talks on its nuclear program without preconditions. Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Beijing and Moscow would have preferred a presidential statement, which is weaker and not legally binding, but agreed to a resolution to respond to the wishes of other council members. "I think the initial response of Security Council members was quite encouraging," he said. "I don't want to sound too optimistic but I think that the ground is there for a successful outcome of this process." Japan's U.N. Ambassador Kenzo Oshima called the Chinese-Russian draft "a move in the right direction" and U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said "we view this as a significant step and think it's important." But both envoys made clear it had serious deficiencies. "A quick glance shows that there are very serious gaps on very important issues," Oshima said of the Chinese-Russian draft. Bolton cited the Chinese-Russian draft's elimination of Chapter 7 and the declaration that the tests constitute a threat to international peace, and its use of the weaker words "calls upon" rather than the Japanese text's "decides" which is an order. "As of now, we're prepared to proceed at an appropriate time with a vote on the draft resolution," Bolton said. "We're going to study this draft that the Russians and Chinese have submitted, but if they vote no, that's their perfect right under the (U.N.) Charter, and everyone can draw their conclusions." ---- US Cool To China-Russia Resolution On North Korea by Staff Writers Rostock, Germany (AFP) Jul 12, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_Cool_To_China_Russia_Resolution_On_North_Korea_999.html The White House on Wednesday gave a cool reception to a compromise resolution by Russia and China on North Korea, reiterating US support for a Japanese measure that calls for sanctions. Asked for Washington's position on the new resolution, national security spokesman Frederick Jones replied: "We have previously expressed support for the Japanese resolution. We remain supportive of the Japanese resolution." Jones's comments came as US President George W. Bush traveled to Germany for talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel before going on to the Russian city of Saint Petersburg for the annual meeting of G8 wealthy democracies plus Russia. China and Russia introduced a draft UN Security Council resolution Wednesday to counter demands from other member states for mandatory weapons-related sanctions against North Korea. The new text was swiftly criticised for having "very serious gaps" by Japan which -- backed by Britain, France and the United States -- had introduced its own draft resolution last week requiring punitive action against Pyongyang for its recent missile tests. Unlike the Japanese draft, the joint Chinese-Russian text does not make the proposed sanctions mandatory and does not invoke Chapter Seven of the UN charter, which can authorize sanctions or even military action. It also does not characterize the missile tests as a "threat to international peace and security." earlier related report US Backs Diplomacy As Push To Sanction North Korea Falters A US envoy said Wednesday that diplomacy could still resolve the standoff over North Korea's missile tests as China and Russia stood firm against a push at the United Nations to impose sanctions. Japan, however, refused to back down in its Western-backed draft resolution to punish Pyongyang, although it also clarified earlier statements of a theoretical pre-emptive strike that set off fury in both North and South Korea. South Korea, which opposes strong reprisals against the North, hoped to use diplomacy to resolve the crisis, warning a high-level visiting delegation from the North against firing more missiles. Christopher Hill, the top US envoy on North Korea, was back in Beijing on a regional tour, hoping to hear from Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing on a Chinese delegation's ongoing talks with Pyongyang's reclusive leadership. When asked by reporters if time was running out to settle the crisis through negotiations, Hill responded: "No, I wouldn't use that. Obviously, we are going to evaluate every day how we are (doing) on the diplomacy." "The DPRK is in a historic moment," Hill told reporters in Beijing, referring to North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. "They must decide further isolation or to join the rest of the world. Yet they cannot decide what to do with this historic moment," he said. North Korea on July 5 test-fired seven missiles, including a new Taepodong-2 which was said to be able to hit Alaska or Hawaii but quickly crashed into the Sea of Japan (East Sea). Pyongyang declared last year it had nuclear weapons and has warned that it would consider sanctions an "act of war." The communist regime walked out of six-nation talks in November that aimed to end its nuclear program and ease concern over its missiles. Hill refused to cede to the North's demands for re-entering talks -- lifting US financial sanctions on a bank in Macau alleged to launder and counterfeit money for the impoverished regime. "How much money laundering would you suggest we allow? A small amount, a medium amount?" Hill said. North Korea's last long-range tested missile flew over Japan into the Pacific Ocean in 1998, leading Tokyo to step up work on a missile shield with the United States. China and Russia do not share Japan's security concerns and instead fear the consequences of putting too much pressure on the North. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Wednesday that the Japanese draft resolution, which is backed by the United States and European powers, "contains unacceptable points." French Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere, the president of the Security Council for July, hinted that China had threatened to veto the draft. He suggested the body might want to first adopt a weaker Chinese text before tackling the Japanese resolution. China has proposed a presidential statement, which carries no legal force. The French envoy said the wording needed to be "stronger" to be acceptable to all members. Japan refused to budge on a binding resolution. "There is no change to our stance to push for the passage of the resolution," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe, the spokesman for the Japanese government. Abe, a leading contender to become Japan's next prime minister, clarified his statement earlier this week on a theoretical pre-emptive attack on the North. He said he was talking only of a hypothetical scenario under which Japan, which is officially pacifist, were under attack. But Rodong Sinmun, the mouthpiece of the ruling Workers Party, said an attack would be a throwback to Japan's 1910-1945 colonial rule of the Korean peninsula. "Japan must realize that a reinvasion would soon lead to its self-destruction," said the newspaper, as monitored by South Korea's Yonhap news agency. South Korea, which has been reconciling with its neighbor, was also outraged by Abe's earlier statement. It has tried to use its warming ties with Pyongyang to exert pressure and expressed international concerns to a ministerial-level North Korean delegation visiting the southern port city of Busan. "We have made it very clear that the situation would get out of control if the North fires off more missiles," said Lee Kwan-Se, spokesman of the South Korean delegation to the inter-Korean talks. South Korea's intelligence agency told parliament there were no indications that North Korea planned to test a second long-range missile, theoretically capable of reaching American soil. -------- pakistan Pakistan determined to get nuclear power - deal or no deal Wednesday, July 12th, 2006 India eNews http://indiaenews.com/2006-07/14604-pakistan-determined-nuclear.htm Washington - Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri has declared Islamabad is determined to go the nuclear route to meet its energy needs whether or not it gets a deal similar to the India-US nuclear agreement. ‘We have the capacity, the infrastructure and the ability to do it, and we’ll do it,’ he said after a lecture at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Tuesday. ‘Only it may take a little longer if US does not accept its plea.’ But Kasuri was confident that as a long-time friend, the US will buy its argument that as a declared nuclear power with the means of delivery, Pakistan itself would not like to divert sensitive nuclear technology to others as feared. Pakistan can also make a tremendous contribution to international non-proliferation efforts provided it was regarded as a partner and not as a target, he said seeking imaginative ways to bring Islamabad out of the nuclear ‘netherland’. In Islamabad’s view, a package approach would thus have been preferable in addressing the civil nuclear energy needs of both India and Pakistan. On the proposed sale of F-16s to Pakistan, Kasuri said even if one subscribed to the doctrine of the minimum credible deterrence as Islamabad does, it still needed the planes to revamp its aging fleet. ‘And if US will not sell, we’ll buy them from elsewhere,’ he said expressing confidence that the fighter plane deal will go through despite the objections raised by some legislators. Talking about India-Pakistan relations, Kasuri again harped on the Kashmir issue describing it as the key irritant that needed an ‘out-of-the-box creative approach’. On his part, President Pervez Musharraf had presented bold and imaginative ideas like demilitarisation, self-governance and joint management to break the logjam. And now it was time for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to take a reciprocal step, he said. Kasuri said the US too must use its considerable influence in South Asia in encouraging the peace process and facilitating a solution acceptable to the people of Pakistan, India and Kashmir. Pakistan and the US have convergent interests on a whole range of regional and international issues, he said. These included the fight against terrorism, stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, avoiding a destructive arms race in South Asia and resolving outstanding disputes such as Kashmir. -------- russia Russia wants to store nuclear waste By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer Wed Jul 12, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060712/ap_on_go_pr_wh/g8_us_russia_nuclear_1 WASHINGTON - Russian President Vladimir Putin is maneuvering to take the nuclear waste the rest of the world shuns, hoping for a financial bonanza — and President Bush, in a reversal of U.S. policy, is offering to help. The two countries will announce as part of the upcoming G-8 summit that they will begin negotiations on a civilian nuclear agreement that would clear the way for Putin to achieve one of his top energy goals: expanding his country's power reactors and using Russia's vast territory as a storehouse for the world's used reactor fuel. A majority of the spent reactor fuel now at power plants — especially in such countries as South Korea, Japan and Taiwan — came from the United States and can't be shipped anywhere without U.S. approval. The United States has civilian nuclear agreements with nearly two dozen countries, including China, but it has opposed negotiating one with Russia, mainly because Russia has been helping Iran develop its nuclear energy program. While U.S. officials have emphasized the desire to increase cooperation with Russia on civilian nuclear matters, some major hurdles must be overcome before an agreement can be reached, including assurances that any U.S.-origin waste that would go to Russia will be secure and safe. "There would have to be all kinds of technical details and safeguards worked out," said Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser, adding, "It will take months to do." Others say it could take years and may find strong opposition in Congress, which does not have to approve a deal, but can veto it. U.S. officials believe Putin wants the civilian nuclear agreement so much that it gives the administration leverage to get more cooperation from Russia to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions. "The Russians can make billions of dollars (from accepting foreign reactor waste) but only with U.S. OK. And that gives the United States a lot of leverage," says Matthew Bunn, a leading nuclear proliferation watchdog who heads the Managing the Atom Project at Harvard University. As for the United States, the administration sees such cooperation with Russia as essential for its broader vision on the expansion of nuclear energy worldwide. There are now 442 nuclear power plants in 32 countries including the U.S. and Russia, and the desire for more reactors is growing, especially in Asia. Earlier this year, the White House unveiled a long-range plan to renew reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel as part of an international program in which a limited number of countries — including the U.S. and Russia — would provide uranium fuel to other countries and then retrieve the used reactor fuel for reprocessing. That would allow countries to have reactors to produce electricity, but not to pursue nuclear fuel enrichment, which — as has been the concern with Iran — poses the risks that uranium might be enriched to a point where it can be used in a weapon. A civilian nuclear agreement would help get Russian participation in the Global Nuclear Energy Project and development of the next generation of nuclear reactors: high-speed neutron reactors that are essential in nuclear fuel reprocessing. Putin has made clear his determination to expand Russian civilian nuclear programs. Like Bush, he envisions an international program to provide uranium fuel and a way to dispose of spent reactor waste. In 2001, Putin signed laws that clear the way for importing spent fuel from foreign reactors, despite strong opposition from many Russians. "In poll after poll, 90 percent of the Russian population objected to Russia becoming essentially a repository for spent nuclear waste," says Sarah Mendelson, a senior fellow in the Russia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think tank. That could pose a sticky problem for the administration, she suggested, if the U.S. is perceived as conspiring with the Russian government against the will of most of its citizens. But many scholars of Russia and of global nuclear issues maintain that increased cooperation on civilian nuclear issues is likely to be beneficial to both countries. "There are a lot of potential benefits, but there are at the same time potential risks," said Bunn, the Harvard scholar who specializes in nuclear proliferation issues. While generally supporting the U.S. initiative with Russia, Bunn said, "The negotiations won't be quick" as the United States seeks assurances from Russia on a broad range of issues from assuring spent fuel is kept secure to gaining some say in how the revenue from waste shipments — estimated by some to be as much as $20 billion — are spent by the Russians. While no U.S. reactor waste is likely to go to Russia, the United States is expected to press Russia to funnel a significant portion of the money it gets from foreign shipments to improving security not only at civilian waste facilities, but also defense sites where nuclear material is kept. Robert Einhorn, a senior CSIS adviser and former assistant secretary of state, said much of the impact of increased U.S.-Russia cooperation on civilian nuclear programs will be positive "especially if Russia would devote some of the revenues from spent fuel storage to nuclear security and other threat reduction steps." "Having material safely stored is a nonproliferation benefit," said Einhorn. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., co-chair of the House Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation, isn't convinced. "Our plan to deal with the global nuclear waste problem should not be turned into a nuclear waste marketplace in a country with such a poor record of securing their own nuclear material," said Markey. "That is just plain naive." On the Net: International Atomic Energy Agency: http://www.iaea.org/ Energy Department's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership: http://www.gnep.energy.gov/ ---- Domenici, Bingaman Oppose Effort to Open U.S. Market to More Enriched Uranium from Russia Opening U.S. Market to Russian Fuel Deemed Harmful to Industry July 12th, 2006 U.S. Senate Press Release http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=235029&Month=7&Year=2006 Washington, D.C. -- Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, with three other Senators, today outlined opposition to changing two international agreements with Russia on enriched uranium that could result in pulling the plug on an increasingly resurgent U.S. nuclear energy industry. In prelude to President Bush’s participation this weekend in the G-8 summit in Russia, Domenici and Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Mike DeWine and George Voinovich (both R-Ohio) issued a letter opposing any changes to the Suspension Agreement and Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Agreement with Russia. The letter was prompted by indications that Russia would like to alter the agreements in order to ship more enriched uranium to the United States. In the letter to the President, the lawmakers say allowing Russia to dump more enriched uranium on the U.S. market would make the nation more reliant on foreign energy and imperil construction of two planned uranium enrichment facilities in the United States—including the National Enrichment Facility near Eunice, N.M. "Any changes proposed in either agreement would have the potential of making the U.S. more dependent on foreign sources of nuclear fuel at a time when domestic sources are being developed. Additionally, Russian access to the U.S. market at this time is likely to result in market destabilization potentially jeopardizing resurgence of the nuclear-related industry,” the letter to Bush stated. The two proposed uranium enrichment facilities—planned by the Louisiana Energy Services in New Mexico and by the U.S. Enrichment Corp. in Ohio—involve the investment of roughly $3.2 billion. By 2013, the two facilities could have combined capacity to provide just half of the enriched uranium required by U.S. nuclear power reactors. In addition to these two facilities, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering applications to construct more than 20 new nuclear power plants in the United States. “Additional Russian nuclear fuel supplies generated at dual military/civilian use enrichment facilities originally built by the Soviet Union were not anticipated. This could have a very chilling effect on the massive investments needed to resurrect a healthy domestic U.S. enrichment industry and grow that industry to meet the fuel supply requirements of new nuclear power reactors in our country,” the letter said. The Senators recommended that the U.S. government undertake an initiative to examine the options for uranium fuel supply options after 2013 while accounting for domestic and international commercial nuclear expansion and sources of fuel for those reactors. This assessment should consider a balance between nonproliferation objectives and market factors. “Pending completion of such an initiative, we support maintaining, with no modifications, the existing Suspension Agreement and HEU Agreement between the U.S. and Russia,” the Senators wrote. Russia signed an agreement with the United States in 1992, amended in 1994, 1996, and 1997, which currently stipulates that no additional Russian nuclear fuel supplies beyond those derived from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons will be delivered to U.S. utilities. Russia is now the single largest supplier of uranium enrichment services to U.S. utilities, providing 44 percent between 2001 and 2005. -------- u.s. nuc facilities Nuclear Power Industry Planning Seven New Reactors HOUSTON, Texas, July 12, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2006/2006-07-12-09.asp#anchor1 NRG Energy, Inc. has plans to build two new nuclear plants at the site of its South Texas Project nuclear facility. The facility is located on the Gulf Coast near Wadsworth, Texas, about 90 miles southwest of Houston. The two plants will have a combined capacity of 2,700 megawatts and will use Advanced Boiling Water Reactor technology developed by General Electric Corporation. On June 19, 2006, NRG filed a letter of intent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct the two plants. Construction is expected to cost $5.2 billion and is expected within the next 10 years. "Nuclear power is an important part of the continued development of our baseload fleet in Texas," said Steven Winn, NRG's executive vice president and president, Texas Region. "We recognize the need for new, low-cost generation and we recognize the importance of reducing the emissions profile of power generators within the growing ERCOT [Electric Reliability Council of Texas] market." NRG is the first company to announce that it will build a new nuclear plant, although several utilities are considering nuclear generating stations in other states. In April, the Florida Power & Light Company notified the NRC of its intent to submit a license application in 2009 for a new nuclear power plant in Florida. The utility has not picked a site or technology and does not expect to decide whether or not to build the plant for several years. In March, Duke Power announced that it selected a site in Cherokee County, South Carolina for a new nuclear plant. The utility is considering two other sites located in North and South Carolina. In February, Santee Cooper and the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company selected the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station near Jenkinsville, South Carolina, as a potential site for a new nuclear plant. Plans are also underway to submit licenses for two other potential new nuclear plants in North Carolina and Georgia. While no utilities are building a new nuclear plant yet, the Tennessee Valley Authority has been upgrading its Browns Ferry Unit 1 nuclear plant, which was shuttered in 1985. The utility received a new operating license for the Alabama plant in May and plans to restart the reactor in May 2007. -------- michigan State considers purchase of former nuclear plant site July 12, 2006 Associated Press http://www.topix.net/r/05KQAC65=2B9p3CnEOW2BSxTdRTKhDJ0xDET1R03DtrVmQWW2uM=2FSqoeuoITtxLkZK227djGLK=2BSwO8kY15wScvfZKDP0s0wfWji84vRF0bGvmkn0=2BKsgG=2FRgKLvKql2rwa CHARLEVOIX, Mich. — A nearly 500-acre tract of undeveloped northern woodland is for sale, and the state may be interested in buying it. But there's a catch: In addition to the forest and more than a mile of Lake Michigan shoreline, the property features a storage area for highly radioactive waste. It previously was the site of the Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant, which shut down in 1997. The reactor and plant buildings have been dismantled. When restoration work is completed next month, the only visible evidence that the plant existed will be the waste: 441 fuel bundles, each containing more than 100 spent nuclear fuel rods. They are stored in concrete casks in a fenced-off area about the size of a basketball court, and likely will remain there until a national repository for high-level radioactive waste is established. That probably won't happen before 2010, says Tim Petrosky, spokesman for Consumers Energy, which operated Big Rock Point and owns the property. Entergy Corp., a utility holding company based in New Orleans, said Wednesday that it would assume responsibility for the waste in connection with its purchase of the Palisades Nuclear Plant near South Haven from Consumers Energy. Consumers would like to sell the land, excluding the waste site. Developers have shown interest, but the company is waiting to see whether the state and the Little Traverse Conservancy can swing a deal for public acquisition. "We are aware of the progress that various organizations have made and are committed ... to working with the local organizations first," Petrosky told the Traverse City Record-Eagle. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources hopes the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund will provide about half of the $20 million asking price. The trust fund buys land for public recreation with royalties paid by companies that lease oil and gas development rights from the state. The DNR is seeking an up-front grant of $3 million, and more later. "There are all sorts of ways we can finance this project. It would likely be spread out over several years," spokeswoman Mary Dettloff said. The trust fund board is scheduled to make another round of grants this year. Competition is fierce, and the Big Rock Point proposal has some "snags" — particularly the waste, board member Sam Washington said. "If it stays on the site, they will have to convince the board that the plans for safeguarding it and safeguarding the public are credible," Washington said. "I've not seen such plans." The conservancy is pushing hard for a public purchase. "We cannot afford to pass this opportunity by," director Tom Bailey said. Information from: Traverse City Record-Eagle, ---- Entergy buying Michigan nuclear generator 7/12/2006, 8:42 a.m. CT By ALAN SAYRE The Associated Press http://www.topix.net/r/05KQAC65=2B9p3CnEOW2BSxTQD91ZjZAx5tTSDN9KWCkJeCH=2F=2BsO72Sf62Sh3UlVCn3FcIMfkbPbbt6o40ykrrTeJVQnyQTztwTahxAkAwmeWZJBKL53A8s6rI4NfAovw1bEOG91jWmRXt1na8NC7xNw=2F0cUNFXu=2BnaYcNsG=2FgPYeA=3D NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Utility holding company Entergy Corp. said Wednesday that it will buy the 798-megawatt Palisades Nuclear Plant near South Haven, Mich. from Consumers Energy for $380 million. Entergy currently owns 10 nuclear generating plants and manages another. Consumers Energy, the principal subsidiary of Jackson, Mich.-based CMS Energy Corp., will buy all of the plant's power output for 15 years, Entergy said. Entergy said the price tag includes $242 million for the physical plant, $83 million in nuclear fuel based on current market prices and $55 million in related assets. As part of the deal, Entergy also said it will assume responsibility for the eventual decommissioning of the plant with Consumers Energy retaining $200 million of the $555 million set aside for the plant's shutdown. Consumers Energy also will pay Entergy $30 million to accept responsibility for the spent fuel at the decommissioned Big Rock Point nuclear plant near Charlevoix, Mich. Entergy also said it would issue 18-month employment offers to the plant's 500 workers at their current salaries, and would continue to maintain their benefits for 36 months. Entergy said it hoped to close the deal during the first quarter of 2007. The sale must be reviewed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Michigan Public Service Commission. Plans call for the plant to be operated by Entergy Nuclear, the Jackson, Miss.-based unit of Entergy that handles the company's nuclear properties. New Orleans-based Entergy also has regulated power sales to 2.7 million customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. On the Net: Entergy Corp.: http://www.entergy.com Consumers Energy: http://www.consumersenergy.com -------- new york Ginna to boost its output of power 36-year-old nuke plant OK'd for 16% increase Staff and wire reports (July 12, 2006) Rochester Democrat & Chronicle http://www.rochesterdandc.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060712/BUSINESS/607120362 The R.E. Ginna nuclear power plant in Wayne County — which is not the oldest U.S. plant but has been online for more days than any other — will begin producing more energy than ever before by the end of the year, a spokesman said. Its owner, Constellation Energy Group Inc., won approval from federal regulators to boost power output 16.8 percent to 610 megawatts, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Tuesday. The change will occur after the normal fall 2006 refueling and maintenance stoppage, said Constellation spokesman Dave Joslin. Baltimore-based Constellation, the largest U.S. power marketer, filed for permission in July 2005 to increase the power output from the reactor, located in the town of Ontario. The NRC determined, by reviewing Constellation's analysis and making independent evaluations, that the plant could safely increase output by "upgrading certain plant systems and components." With the increased output, the plant would be able to provide enough power for about 488,000 typical U.S. homes, according to Energy Department estimates. Currently, Constellation provides RG&E with 90 percent of the power from the 525-megawatt level, and that will not change, Joslin said. The excess energy from the increased output will be sold back into the electric grid. The power boost is made possible by $42 million in safety and other improvements Constellation has made since it bought the plant in 2004, he said. "Safety is obviously the huge word," he said. The 36-year-old plant has a lot of life in it, said Ginna Vice President Maria Korsnick. "Ginna is safe and reliable and will be generating more electricity for at least the next 23 years," she said. Constellation Energy is being acquired by FPL Group Inc., owner of Florida's largest utility. Includes reporting by staff writer David Tyler and Bloomberg News. -------- MILITARY -------- business Pentagon to End Multi-Billion Halliburton Contract Wednesday, July 12th, 2006 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/12/145250 In other Iraq news, the Washington Post is reporting the Pentagon is discontinuing its multi-billion dollar logistics contract with Halliburton. The decision will affect most of Halliburton’s operations in Iraq. The company has come under intense scrutiny for its close ties to the Bush administration and a series of well-publicized accusations of incompetence, corruption and fraud. Government audits of Halliburton’s Iraq services have found more than $1 billion in questionable costs. No company has been awarded more money in contracts from the Iraq war. Halliburton pulled in over $7 billion last year and is expected to make at least $4 billion this year. ---- Army to rebid Halliburton's logistics contract By Will Dunham Wed Jul 12, 2006 (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060712/ts_nm/arms_halliburton_iraq_dc WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army said on Wednesday it would end a Halliburton Co. unit's multibillion-dollar contract to provide logistical support to soldiers in Iraq and other points around the globe, and will rebid the contract later this year. Army officials said the subsidiary, KBR, will be allowed to take part in the new competition, but one option under consideration is to split the work among three companies. "It will be rebid," said Dave Foster, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon. Foster said the Army has not made a "formal decision" to split the work, adding that after the rebidding process KBR potentially could keep its current role. "The need for the service continues," Foster said. "They (Army officials) are simply restructuring the way they're going about requesting people to fill that need." Texas-based Halliburton, formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, has drawn scrutiny from auditors, congressional Democrats and the Justice Department for the quality and pricing of its work in Iraq that includes supplying water, dining and laundry services to the troops. Halliburton is the world's second-largest oil services company and the U.S. military's biggest contractor in Iraq. "It falls under lessons learned," Foster said when asked why the Army decided to rebid the contract. "We're constantly working the process -- lessons learned, how can we do things better, what may offer a better, more effective way of doing that." "There's discussion under way that there may be -- may be -- a better way of doing this if you open it up to as many as three bids for the contract," Foster said. Foster did not specify the nature of the "lessons learned." The Washington Post reported the decision to end Halliburton's logistics contract in its Wednesday edition. Last year, the Army paid the company more than $7 billion under the contract, the Post said. Halliburton said the U.S. Army's move to end the contract to provide logistical services to U.S. troops did not come as a surprise. "It is neither unusual nor unexpected that the LOGCAP contract may be replaced with another competitively bid approach as previous iterations of this contract vehicle have experienced," Halliburton spokeswoman Melissa Norcross said in a statement. The company has defended its troop support work. In Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan, KBR said it has prepared nearly 375 million meals, washed more than 18.5 million bundles of laundry and transported supplies more than 100 million miles. "By all accounts, KBR's logistical achievements in support of the troops in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan have been nothing short of amazing," Norcross said. Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record), a North Dakota Democrat, called the move to rebid the contract "a step in the right direction." "Finally the taxpayers get a break," Dorgan said on the Senate floor. Shares of Halliburton were down 1.5 percent at $74.41 on the New York Stock Exchange in Wednesday afternoon trading, amid a broad retreat in U.S. stocks. Over the last 12 months its shares have traded a low as $45.77, in July last year, and as high as $83.95 on April 20. Halliburton declined to comment on whether the move would affect its planned initial public offering of KBR stock, expected to raise up to $550 million. One company watcher said the company had been telling investors for months the government could end the contract. "I wouldn't think this would have much impact on (KBR) one way or the other," Kurt Hallead, analyst with RBC Capital Markets said. (Additional reporting by Matt Daily in Houston) -------- latin america The US Military Descends on Paraguay Benjamin Dangl, July 12, 2006 The Nation Online http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060717/dangl While hitchhiking across Paraguay a few years ago, I met welcoming farmers who let me camp in their backyards. I eventually arrived in Ciudad del Este, known for its black markets and loose borders. Now the city and farmers I met are caught in the crossfire of the US military's "war on terror." On May 26, 2005, the Paraguayan Senate allowed US troops to train their Paraguayan counterparts until December 2006, when the Paraguayan Senate can vote to extend the troops' stay. The United States had threatened to cut off millions in aid to the country if Paraguay did not grant the troops entry. In July 2005 hundreds of US soldiers arrived with planes, weapons and ammunition. Washington's funding for counterterrorism efforts in Paraguay soon doubled, and protests against the military presence hit the streets. Some activists, military analysts and politicians in the region believe the operations could be part of a plan to overthrow the left-leaning government of Evo Morales in neighboring Bolivia and take control of the area's vast gas and water reserves. Human rights reports from Paraguay suggest the US military presence is, at the very least, heightening tensions in the country. -------- russia / chechnya Russian opposition asks G-8 to push Putin By MARIA DANILOVA, Associated Press Writer Wed Jul 12, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060712/ap_on_re_eu/g8_russia_opposition MOSCOW - Russian opposition movements appealed Wednesday to Group of Eight to pressure President Vladimir Putin to end what they called systematic political repression, saying the country was increasingly moving away from democracy. Putin, meanwhile, accused Western officials attending the conference — intended to counter the image of a democratic Russia the government will be presenting at the G-8 summit of the world's top industrialized nations opening Saturday — of interfering in internal Russian affairs. "Systematic repression against the Russian opposition has become in fact the prelude to the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg — that is to say, part of its agenda," participants of the "Other Russia" summit said in a statement to the G-8. "It is apparent to us that this campaign of repression is centralized and ... sanctioned by the political leadership of our country," they said. The organizers said dozens of opposition and rights activists have been forcibly prevented from attending the gathering, many of them beaten and detained, and urged the G-8 leaders to demand their immediate release and to end all unlawful actions against the opposition. They said nationalist lawmaker Sergei Glazyev was prevented from speaking at the forum when he was assaulted by hooligans, alleging it was a government-sponsored attempt to sabotage the event. The organizers also said that security officers in plainclothes detained several opposition activists attending the conference Tuesday night without any explanation, and injured a German photographer trying to photograph that. Moscow police were unavailable to comment on the allegations late Wednesday. Former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov accused the government of curbing democratic institutions and freedoms, and urged liberal forces to unite before the 2007 and 2008 parliamentary and presidential elections. "The authorities are increasingly stifling the political sphere ... it's no longer just threats and bureaucratic obstacles, they have already resorted to repression," Kasyanov told the delegates. Since Putin came to power six years ago, independent television networks have been reined in, the parliament has been transformed into an obedient body, and direct elections of regional leaders have been abolished. The two-day conference was a rare opportunity for Russia's embattled opposition groups to unite, but it again demonstrated the deep divisions among liberal forces. The two most prominent liberal parties, the Union of Right Forces and Yabloko, did not attend to protest the inclusion of ultranationalist and radical groups that they said would undercut the democratic character of the meeting. Putin's former economic adviser Andrei Illarionov, who helped organized the conference, charged the two parties were "not democratic and not in opposition" to the authorities, signaling continuing divides among the liberal opposition. A number of Western diplomats, including British Ambassador Anthony Brenton and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, attended the conference despite indications from the Kremlin that their presence would not be welcome. Edward McMillan-Scott, a European Parliament member from Britain, told the forum that Russia represented "a threat to Europe's stability and security," because it was "led by a regime that is selfish, corrupt and which is unreliable." In an interview with Canadian TV channel CTV, Putin indicated the Western officials' attendance was being seen as interference in Russia's internal affairs. "If officials of other countries support this undertaking, it simply means they are trying to influence the internal political arrangement of Russia a little bit," Putin said, according to the Kremlin transcript. ---- Putin signs measure reducing military duty Wed Jul 12, 2006 Associated Press http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060712/ap_on_re_eu/russia_draft MOSCOW - President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday signed into law a bill cutting the length of military service, but also canceling many deferments from the draft, the Kremlin said. The legislation, passed by both houses of parliament in June, reduces the current two-year conscription term to 1 1/2 years beginning next year, then to one year in 2008. The bill also abolishes five accepted reasons for military draft deferments and toughens the requirements for four others. One of the canceled deferments is for those caring for elderly and sick parents; another is for rural teachers and doctors. The law has sparked much public criticism, but military officials say it is necessary to compensate for the shorter conscription term. All men between the ages of 18 and 27 are required to serve in Russia's 1.2 million-member military. However, fewer than 10 percent of eligible men are currently drafted, with many dodging service by enrolling in college, being excused for health reasons — often falsified — or simply bribing draft officers. Military service is extremely unpopular in Russia because of the poor conditions and rampant bullying of young conscripts by older soldiers. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- homeland security / national intelligence Watchdog sees flaws in Homeland Security database Updated 7/12/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-12-homelandsecurity_x.htm WASHINGTON — A Homeland Security database of national monuments, chemical plants and other structures vulnerable to terror attacks is too faulty to accurately help divide federal funds to states and cities, according to the department's internal watchdog. Much of the study by Homeland Security Inspector General Richard Skinner appears to have been completed before the department announced in May it would cut security grants to New York and Washington by 40% this year. But the report, which was released Tuesday, affirmed the fury of those two cities — the two targets of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — which claimed the department did not accurately assess their risks. Instead, the department's database of vulnerable critical infrastructure and key resources included an insect zoo, a bourbon festival, a bean fest and a kangaroo conservation center. The database "is not an accurate representation of the nations CI/KR (critical infrastructure and key resources)," inspectors concluded. Additionally, the database "is not yet comprehensive enough to support the management and resource allocation decision-making envisioned by the National Infrastructure Protection Plan." The report noted that Indiana has 8,591 assets listed in the database — more than any other state and 50% more than New York. New York had 5,687 listed. It did not detail which ones, but the Homeland Security assessment of New York this year failed to include Times Square, the Empire State Building the Brooklyn Bridge or the Statue of Liberty as a national icon or monument. A Homeland Security spokesman did not return a call or e-mail for comment Tuesday night. But in an April 13 response to a draft of the report, department Undersecretary George Foresman said the database represented a range of national assets that could face different levels of threats at different times. The data "have been and are currently being utilized to support allocation decision making processes for the department," wrote Foresman, who oversees the database and the grant funds. He added: "The process also continues to mature and improve." Inspectors found "quirky totals" by states that submitted lists of vulnerable assets. The database does not rank the assets it tracks by perceived threats and consequences they face, the report found. An earlier attempt to do so with 1,849 assets "was unreliable." NATIONAL ASSETS According to an inspector general's report, information gathered in 2003 for the Department of Homeland Security's National Asset Database included: Old MacDonald's Petting Zoo Mall at Sears Bean fest Nix's Check Cashing American Society of Young Musicians Trees of Mystery Car dealerships Kennel Club and Poker Room Historical Bok Sanctuary 4 Cs Fuel and Lube DPW Landfill Kangaroo Conservation Center Assyrian American Association Association for the Jewish Blind Bourbon Festival Theological Seminary Jay's Sporting Goods Nestle Purina pet food plant Auto shop Veterinary clinic Groundhog zoo Sweetwater Flea Market High Stakes Bingo Petting Zoo Frontier Fun Park Mule Day Parade Amish Country Popcorn The inspector general's report also listed some targets not specifically identified, including a state Right-to-Life Committee, a university's insect zoo, a community college, a restaurant, a travel stop and a pepper and herb company. A closer examination at 2004 data from Florida, Illinois, Indiana and Maryland turned up: Psychiatry Behavioral Center Order of Elks National Memorial Ice cream parlor Bakery & cookie shop Donut shop Sears Auto Center Wine and coffee company Sports club Casket company Bass pro shop Muzzle Shoot Enterprise Several Wal-Marts Property owners associations Apple and Pork Festival Rolls Royce plant Pepsi bottlers Yacht repair business Anti-cruelty society Tackle shop Elevator company Center for veterinary medicine American Legion UPS store Heritage groups Parcel shop YMCA center Brewery Mail Boxes Etc. Night clubs Source: Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General -------- POLITICS -------- us politics Senate Votes to Replace FEMA With a New Federal Agency By ERIC LIPTON July 12, 2006 New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/washington/12fema.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fH%2fHomeland%20Security%20Department%20&pagewanted=print WASHINGTON, July 11 — The Senate voted 87 to 11 Tuesday night to create a new federal entity to replace the much-criticized Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Senate’s action came in the form of an amendment to the domestic security budget bill. The new agency, called the Emergency Management Authority, would remain in the Homeland Security Department into which FEMA, which once had cabinet status, was merged in 2003. But in times of major disasters, the new agency would report directly to the president. The Senate also voted on Tuesday to amend the proposed $32.8 billion domestic security spending bill by adding another $648 million for port security to pay for more equipment and personnel to inspect ship containers, and an extra $350 million for border security to buy aircraft and vehicles to help border patrol agents and to enhance border fences. Final passage of the bill by Congress is far from assured. The House is still considering legislation proposed by Representative Don Young, Republican of Alaska, that would keep FEMA but move it outside the Homeland Security Department, returning it to the more prominent, stand-alone status it had during the Clinton administration. Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, who co-sponsored the legislation to change the agency, said the agency’s performance after Hurricane Katrina last year was such a national embarrassment that the federal government had no option but to abolish it and replace it with an agency that had new powers and a new name. The Senate bill would also reunite agencies assigned to help prepare for disasters or terrorist attacks with those that respond and help cities or states recover from them, functions now split in different parts of the Homeland Security Department. And it would require creation of larger, better-staffed regional emergency management offices for the new Emergency Management Agency. “It is not business as usual, but rather a dramatic reform of FEMA,” Ms. Collins said after the vote. The Department of Homeland Security, which has opposed totally removing the functions handled by FEMA from its control, as one House bill proposes, ended up supporting the Senate legislation, saying it “wisely reinforces D.H.S.’s ability to operate as a comprehensive, all-hazards agency by keeping FEMA’s capabilities within D.H.S.” -------- voting Florida Con Salsa: Investigative Reporter Greg Palast Reports on Voter Fraud in Mexico's Presidential Election Wednesday, July 12th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/12/146201 In Mexico, populist candidate Andres Manuel López Obrador released a preliminary video yesterday of what he says proves he was cheated out of last week's presidential election. In a video shot in the central state of Guanajuato, the footage shows an apparent supporter of Calderon's National Action Party stuffing a ballot box on the day of the elections. Investigative reporter Greg Palast travels to Mexico City to report on the disputed election. [includes rush transcript] We turn now to the Mexican presidential elections. Last week, election authorities announced that conservative candidate Felipe Calderón, a former energy minister, had defeated Andres Manuel López Obrador by a razor slim margin. This was after electoral officials recounted ballot tallies from the initial vote. The recount showed that Calderon won the presidency by the closest margin in Mexico's history - around two-hundred-twenty-thousand votes of forty-one million cast - or just over half a percentage point. But Lopez Obrador has refused to concede citing electoral fraud. On Sunday, Lopez Obrador and his supporters filed a request for a full vote-by-vote recount of the election. They have also called for supporters to begin marching on the capital today and to join up for a huge march in Mexico City on Sunday. Yesterday, Obrador released a preliminary video of what it says proves he was cheated out of last week's Presidential election. In a video shot in the central state of Guanajuato, the footage shows an apparent supporter of Calderon's National Action Party stuffing a ballot box on the day of the elections. Mexico"s Federal Electoral Court will review the case, which includes videos, campaign propaganda and electoral documents. The court has until September 6 to declare a winner. Meanwhile, yesterday Felipe Calderon announced his plans for a victory tour through Mexico. Investigative reporter Greg Palast was in Mexico City to cover the story. He filed this report. * Greg Palast reports from Mexico City. Special thanks to Rick Rowely and Jacquie Soohen of Big Noise Films. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Investigative reporter Greg Palast was in Mexico City to cover the story. He filed this report. GREG PALAST: July 3rd, I was in my office in London when the phone rang. It was Mexico City. I was told, “Take a look at the Mexican papers.” The exit polls in the presidential election there showed a clear win for Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the left wing's candidate for president, but the official count gave the election to George Bush's ally, Felipe Calderon, of the rightwing ruling party, the PAN. Hmmm. Exit polls that don't match the official vote count. I had heard that story before. In Ohio in 2004, John Kerry led Bush in the exit polls, and in 2000, Al Gore won in the Florida exit polls. But in both cases, George Bush won in the official count. So I booked the first flight out to Mexico City to answer the question: Did Felipe Calderon of the conservative PAN, the party in power, win the presidential election fairly or was this just another Florida con salsa?” The official numbers just didn't add up. So my first stop was to meet one of Mexico's top numbers experts, statistician Victor Romero of Mexico's National University. Dr. Romero had charted the official government elections returns from each of Mexico's 113,000 voting stations. VICTOR ROMERO: The way I did this was, a friend of mine, that he had the results second by second. GREG PALAST: Well, randomly, this can't happen. VICTOR ROMERO: Can’t happen. GREG PALAST: So what did happen then? Beside -- there’s a miracle here. VICTOR ROMERO: It’s a miracle. GREG PALAST: How did the miracle occur? VICTOR ROMERO: How did the miracle occur? I don't know. GREG PALAST: On a computer printout, Dr. Romero showed how the official tallies matched the exit polls, with challenger Lopez Obrador ahead by 2% all night. That is, until the very end, when several precincts came in for the ruling party by 10-to-1, and then 100-to-1, putting their candidate Felipe Calderon over the top, literally in the last minutes. The doctor found that statistically improbable. VICTOR ROMERO: We reached the point I said, “It’s over.” But then, from 71% ‘til the very end, there was not a single moment in which the difference from one report to the next became bigger. GREG PALAST: So it didn't change at all. Just was perfect. VICTOR ROMERO: Perfect, perfect. And so we just couldn't believe it. I mean, it fell -- with 5% to go, it fell one full point. GREG PALAST: So then, what happened? VICTOR ROMERO: Another miracle. Statistically, it's a second miracle. But now it is -- GREG PALAST: Well, are you a religious man? VICTOR ROMERO: I’m not a religious man. GREG PALAST: So you don't believe in miracles? VICTOR ROMERO: No, but other people do, so, you know. They say that it works even if you don’t believe in them, so. GREG PALAST: The results may not seem so miraculous if you take a look at these voter sheets. This is from a district in Guanajuato, which shows that Calderon picked up 192 votes, but Obrador, the challenger, got only 12. And here’s how this miraculous total can be explained. We were given a videotape of a poll worker, seen here stuffing ballots into the unguarded cardboard ballot box. Mexico has virtually zero ballot security in rural areas. There is no system for accounting for unused paper ballots. Stuffing them into the cardboard boxes is absurdly easy. Despite the evidence of ballot stuffing, the conflict with exit polls and the miraculous returns, the Federal Election Commission in Mexico named Calderon the winner by a margin thin as a tortilla, by less than 0.5%. The rush to announce a winner was all the more surprising given the wave of other reported irregularities. This is Cesar Yanez who directed the campaign for Lopez Obrador’s party, the PRD. He noted there were 300,000 fewer votes for president than for senator, a drop-off that voting experts say never happens without fraud. Yanez guessed maybe they ate their votes. The Federal Election Commission's rush to announce a winner caught my attention because of the astonishingly high pile of supposedly uncountable votes: nearly one million blank unreadable ballots, four times the alleged margin of victory. The smell of Florida was unmistakable. In the 2000 U.S. election, Florida's Secretary of State Katherine Harris stopped a hand count of 179,000 supposedly blank ballots. Mexico's Electoral Commission, taking the exact same stance as Harris, is refusing to have a public hand count of those supposedly blank one million ballots. Yanez noted that the commission agreed to open a fragment of 1% of the ballot packets. In most cases, ballots that were totaled as blank were, in fact, votes for Obrador. Each box opened produced enough newfound votes for Obrador that opening all the boxes should statistically change the outcome of the election. But all the boxes won't be opened. The ruling party, the PAN, and the Electoral Commission refuse a full public recount, and the government says that it's over. Felipe Calderon and his ally George Bush say it's all over, but there are hundreds of thousands of people here who say, not until all the votes are counted one by one. On Saturday, half a million Obrador supporters filled the capital to make one simple demand: voto pro voto, count every vote. We’ve come here to the ruling party's compound to ask Felipe Calderon exactly why he doesn't want to count all the votes. “Mr. Calderon, why not count all the ballots?” would be a question from England. Calderon gave me the brush-off, but the man tipped to be his foreign minister, Arturo Sarukhan, defended his man. ARTURO SARUKHAN: There is a process called the rule of law in this country, and it is not to be used willy-nilly to bend depending on whether you fancy the results of an election or you don't fancy the results of an election. What we have said is that we are convinced that what was not obtained through the ballot box should not be obtained through the streets. GREG PALAST: But in Washington, President Bush was too impatient for the full vote count. While the European Union was waiting for a full legal review, Bush called Calderon to congratulate him on his victory, and evidence suggests that George Bush may have secretly tried to help in that victory. We have obtained from U.S. FBI files a copy of a secret government contract with a private firm, ChoicePoint of Alpharetta, Georgia. ChoicePoint, you may recall, is the company that provided a list to Katherine Harris in 2000, which permitted her office to wrongly scrub thousands of African Americans from Florida voter rolls. ChoicePoint, this document indicates, was back in the vote list business in Mexico at the request of the Bush administration. While the cover of their September 2001 contract says it is to gather intelligence for counterterrorism investigations, the still classified appendix, which we have, clarifies that the contract is limited to gathering citizen files and voter lists of Latin American nations, specifically those nations which have leftist presidents or leading leftist candidates for president. The company, we have learned, did, in fact, obtain the voter files of Venezuela and Mexico for the FBI. It's difficult to imagine how these files will help in the war on terror, but they can be very useful in influencing Latin American elections. And, indeed, we filmed voters in Mexico who found themselves mysteriously scrubbed from voter rolls. SCRUBBED VOTER: I wasn't able to vote. I wasn't on the list. I waited seven hours here for nothing, seven hours in the rain, seven hours hungry, just so the electoral representatives could laugh at me. The Electoral Commission is a real fraud. I tell you that as a Mexican. GREG PALAST: In Mexico City, I met with an Obrador supporter who discovered that, in fact, the ruling party, the PAN, had somehow got a hold of the voter files. She discovered this information after she obtained the secret passwords to the party's website from a whistleblower. We were not allowed to film her face. OBRADOR SUPPORTER: I can't tell you how they were using this information, but I can assure you this is illegal. This is a crime. GREG PALAST: Are you aware of the fact that a contractor for George Bush and the U.S. FBI obtained all these citizen files? OBRADOR SUPPORTER: Yes, ChoicePoint was the name of the company who got that. Yes, we were aware of that. GREG PALAST: But we don't know where this information comes from? OBRADOR SUPPORTER: We know that it’s in the official page of the candidate. GREG PALAST: But they’re not supposed to have these for these purposes? OBRADOR SUPPORTER: No, no, no. They’re not supposed to have it. And, of course, they are by no way supposed to use it. That's a crime. GREG PALAST: But it could be very helpful. OBRADOR SUPPORTER: Well, much more than we ever thought. GREG PALAST: She showed me on a computer how to get into the hidden pages of the PAN's website. OBRADOR SUPPORTER: This was Calderon's page, right? If you go into the user hildebrando117 and you typed in the password, you could type your name, any name. You could find all her information, where she lives, where she stay, or everything. These are the electoral votes. GREG PALAST: Our source believes that the vote-counting software was key to the election victory. She showed us proof that the candidate's brother-in-law was paid to write the vote-counting software. Was the election stolen? OBRADOR SUPPORTER: Yes, we can be sure of that. The election was definitely stolen. And people should be there counting the votes one by one. Democracy doesn't have a time limit. GREG PALAST: Thank you very much for your time. OBRADOR SUPPORTER: Thank you. GREG PALAST: We promise not to show your face. OBRADOR SUPPORTER: Thank you. GREG PALAST: Why would the Bush administration be so concerned about the presidency of Mexico? There are many issues, but one stands out. It's the oil. DEMONSTRATOR 1: We have to fight to defend our oil so they don't take it to another country. Lopez Obrador is going to fight for what we haven't been able to fight for. DEMONSTRATOR 2: We have to save our oil. The oil is ours. It belongs to Mexicans. GREG PALAST: Mexico sells more oil to the U.S.A. than Saudi Arabia. Leftist Lopez Obrador has stood steadfast against allowing U.S. oil companies to own any part of the Mexican oil system. The PAN, however, has suggested allowing the U.S. oil majors to have a stake in the Mexican oil operations. PAN SUPPORTER: We want a country where people aren't persecuted for being rich. People who work have the right to live well. And people who don't work, too bad, tough luck. GREG PALAST: This week, I hung around Mexico City, waiting for the inevitable concession speech from Obrador. In the face of ruling party intransigence over recounting the votes, he had no choice but to follow the path of Al Gore and John Kerry: concede defeat. While killing time in a dive with some loud mariachis, I ran into filmmaker Luis Mandoki, Obrador’s film biographer. Over chicken mole, he told me that Obrador was of a different character than his U.S. counterparts. LUIS MANDOKI: The difference between AMLO and Gore or Kerry is the people. He said, “If I wanted, I could stop the country tomorrow. I can. I can block airports, communications, highways. I’m never going to do that. That's not good for the people.” He's somebody who is very prudent, very careful. But at the same time, he said, “But I’m not going to let him get it, because I won the election.” I mean, neither Gore nor Kerry had that connection with the country, which he does. And that's where his strength comes from. GREG PALAST: He invited me to meet with Obrador the next day. When Mandoki introduced me to the candidate, I asked the upbeat Obrador what he would do if the ruling party simply refused to count the votes. If they refuse to count the vote, what are you going to do? “Espera,” he said, “wait” for my answer. It came later that day, before thousands of his chanting supporters. He's saying we won't give up. We won't concede. The election is a fraud. And we will fight in the courts and in the streets peacefully. And he called for his supporters to march from each of the 300 voting districts to the capital beginning Wednesday. Two million are expected to arrive in Mexico City this weekend to demand a recount. They say it's not over. The fat lady hasn't sung, not until all ballots are counted, vote by vote. AMY GOODMAN: That report filed by investigative reporter Greg Palast from Mexico City. Special thanks to Rick Rowley and Jacquie Soohen of Big Noise Tactical Films. Greg Palast flew in from Mexico City last night and joins us today in our Firehouse studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Greg. GREG PALAST: Glad to be with you, Amy. AMY GOODMAN: Very interesting report. It certainly isn’t over. Now, today, a major protest? GREG PALAST: Yeah, well, what's exciting here is that you’ve got a guy who’s really the un-Gore. That is, Lopez Obrador, sometimes known as AMLO by his initials, this guy is not conceding. And it’s not over with at all. In fact, the only person I know that’s said that it's over with is George Bush and his spokesman Tony Snow, who said the Electoral Commission has chosen a winner. They have not. Even Calderon is not so bold as to say it's over. Lopez Obrador is calling today for -- beginning today for people to march from each of the 300 Mexican voting districts from around the country to the capital. There were a half-million people in the capital, as we showed in the film, on Saturday. So a couple million people are expected to arrive in the capital Saturday. This is going to continue on until at least the end of August, because they are demanding a recount of every single vote. Now, it's a simple paper ballot, which you can easily open up and look at. One of the big issues is that there is nearly a million -- 904,000 -- votes that are supposedly blank, just like -- it's very almost identical to the hanging chad situation of Florida in 2000, where the Democrats were saying, well, count the votes. AMLO is not doing the Gore thing of saying count a few votes. He’s saying count every single vote. Let's open them up. Let’s look. It's very, very easy to understand these paper ballots. Why are there a million ballots missing? Why are ballots being stuffed? There’s really no ballot security there. And now, today, Calderon, as of last night, Calderon has said, yes, he would agree to some selective recounting. But there is a very good chance this election will be annulled. AMY GOODMAN: The first paragraph in the Washington Post today, “Felipe Calderon, the free trade booster who was declared the winner of Mexico's disputed presidential election, said Tuesday he would accept a partial recount, but that a complete recount would be absurd and illegal.” GREG PALAST: Right. What he's hanging on is a rule that there is no particular rule which says that you have to recount every vote. Well, what's unusual, they have the really excellent condition for the voting process in that it's all paper ballots, very easy to recount, but the ruling party is saying don't recount. When we say “don't recount,” you have to understand the counts in the first place are done in these remote areas, 130,000 polling stations, some of which don't have any observers from AMLO's party at all, tens of thousands. And the results are coming in ridiculous. 100-to-1 against AMLO. These are precincts that came in at the very last minute and put him over the top. So the question is, are we going to recount every one of the precincts? That's the only way that they’re going to get a fair vote. But one of the interesting things is that no one in Mexico believes that this is over with at all. There’s a very, very good chance that the election not only may be switched as to who’s declared winner, but there is a good chance that the Elections Tribunal which has not ruled yet -- that's a different group than the Elections Commission -- the Elections Tribunal will decide by August whether, in fact, the election has to be annulled and a new election held. There's a lot of talk among political leaders there quietly that annulment of the election is a strong possibility. AMY GOODMAN: You were at the news conference that AMLO -- the initials, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador -- held where he showed the videotape, which he said showed a PAN supporter stuffing a ballot box. GREG PALAST: Right. Well, what I did is, as we showed in the film, I actually went out and got the sheets. I wasn't to make sure that AMLO wasn't putting one over on us by having one of his own guys stuff a ballot box. And we got the sheets, and it was pretty clear that it was stuffed. But that's one precinct out of 130,000. The point of that was, if you look at just the ballots left around, if you don't vote for president or there’s these empty ballot sheets, which anyone could just grab and stuff into a box, there is zero ballot security at all in Mexico. It's just astonishing. So even if you do count, that's not to say the count will be fair, but at least there is some chance of finding out what's in those packets. And every time they’ve opened up -- to me, because I’ve been covering elections shoplifting for years, to me what was interesting was that they have opened up 240 ballot boxes out of the 100-something thousand, and each of those 240 has shown additional votes for AMLO. If he just gets two more votes per polling station, it's over. Then he becomes president. AMY GOODMAN: Speaking of becoming president, President Bush called Calderon. He was one of a handful of foreign leaders who called Calderon to congratulate him. Lopez Obrador is condemning those who would speak out now and before the Electoral Commission has announced results. GREG PALAST: Frankly, I think it even embarrassed Calderon himself, the ruling party's candidate, because it made it look like Uncle Sam was petting their little cousin and trying to influence the decision on the outcome. Calderon is a bit weary of saying “I have absolutely won. It's over with.” And it was quite embarrassing for Bush to be congratulating him. It's like, as if the Mexican president had called up Al Gore the day after the Florida vote and congratulated him. It's not over with, by any means. And it was quite embarrassing, in addition. So, for Calderon, in fact, to make it look like he wasn't George Bush's puppet and Bush wasn't influencing the election, Calderon actually took a big shot at Bush and said, “Tear down that wall. Build no walls.” So he was trying to create some distance between himself and Bush. It was very embarrassing for the White House to be stepping in. And as you saw from the film, from our report, we were able to find out the White House looked to be trying to influence the election by grabbing the voter rolls, which, by the way, unlike the United States, the voter rolls in Mexico are private and secret, because they also contain all kinds of personal information about each voter. And so they are actually confidential. And we did find out that the ruling party, the PAN, had obtained the private voter rolls and used them for campaigning, which is against the law. And we did ask them about this, and they were very embarrassed, and they couldn't give us a good explanation about why it was they suddenly had all the voting rolls and had polling information next to each voter. That's against the law in Mexico. Now, whether they use George Bush's list or not -- obviously, they have their own routes to get those voter lists -- but it's astonishing the lengths that this administration would go to to interject itself into the Mexican election. In fact, its obvious attempts at intervention and very ham-handed, have completely embarrassed Calderon to the point where the ruling party actually attempted to arrest ChoicePoint, the U.S. government contractor, which grabbed the voter rolls, and they put out warrants for company agents’ arrest. The company itself now has apologized to the Mexican government. AMY GOODMAN: On a different issue, and speaking of President Bush, as we wrap up, Greg, and we'll certainly continue to follow what's happening in Mexico, in the last few weeks since we spoke to you last, Dan Rather has left CBS. In your book, Armed Madhouse, you talk a lot about Dan Rather, Dan Rather taking on President Bush. As he was leaving, all of the reports around the country were about how he had fell for a kind of scam, false information about President Bush when he -- around the whole story of his military records and serving in the Guard. Can you talk about that? GREG PALAST: Well, first of all, we ran the original story on BBC television. I was a reporter showing that George Bush's father, George, Sr., used his influence directly to get his son out of the war in Vietnam and into the Texas Air Guard. Rather repeated the story and added a little side story about a memo, which has nothing to do with the main story about whether basically George Bush's family used influence to get him out of the war. We have never, at BBC, unlike Dan Rather -- I mean, obviously, I haven't resigned -- BBC has never retracted a comma of our story at all. The problem for Dan Rather is that he wanted it both ways. I mean, he wants to be -- he wanted to do this tough report, but then not stand by it. CBS retracted completely the report about the Bush family using its influence. That was completely wrong of them to do. And to me, it looks as if what CBS was doing was making an example of Rather for putting out a tough report. AMY GOODMAN: And the general story went, it had been proven that he had false documents, and yet the investigative report done by Dick Thornburg and others actually never took on the issue of documents and, if they were false, why did the White House not prosecute, because this is falsifying federal documents. GREG PALAST: Right, there’s absolutely no grounds whatsoever. Supposedly this document, the accusation, the whisper -- it's more of a whisper and a rumor than blank accusations that a lieutenant colonel of the Air Guard, Bill Burkett, falsified a document used by Dan Rather. I know Bill Burkett. I’ve taken a look at this. There is no grounds whatsoever to believe that the document was falsified. The story in chief stands. Neither Burkett nor anyone else can verify whether this little document -- AMY GOODMAN: Right. They’re not verified. GREG PALAST: It’s true. We can't verify this thing at all. I mean, it’s really -- what it is is a little sideshow distraction that was used to beat Dan Rather and to punish a reporter for trying to take on the President of the United States. That's what it's all about. It's about punishing reporters and making an example of Rather. Believe me, they know that Greg Palast, frankly, is in exile, reporting from England. They know that Dan Rather's carcass of his career has been thrown out on the tarmac. There is no reporter in the United States who is ever going to touch that story or any other story which reflects on the Bush family's extraordinary power. AMY GOODMAN: It's just been announced that Dan Rather has signed a deal to host a show on HDNet. Well, Greg Palast, I want to thank you for being with us. Greg Palast, well known for exposing the 2000 election, first for the BBC, then eventually it got into U.S. papers after. GREG PALAST: And for Democracy Now! AMY GOODMAN: And thank you so much for reporting for Democracy Now! in Mexico City. Greg Palast's latest book is Armed Madhouse: Who’s Afraid of Osama Wolf, China Floats, Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal ’08, No Child’s Behind Left, and Other Dispatches from the Frontlines of a Class War. -------- ENERGY Nuclear power is the future, says Blair - but not in Scotland JAMES KIRKUP POLITICAL EDITOR Wed 12 Jul 2006 The Scotman http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1013642006 TONY Blair yesterday paved the way for a new generation of nuclear power stations - but only in England. Effectively formalising a cross-Border energy divide, the government's long-awaited Energy Review yesterday confirmed expectations that ministers have dropped previous objections to new nuclear plants and will grant permission for international energy giants to construct up to ten new reactors south of the Border. Less than three years after another policy review declared that nuclear power was not a viable option for Britain's future energy needs, yesterday's 215-page study found that nuclear power "is a potentially economic source of electricity" that produces only low levels of carbon dioxide, the gas scientists say leads to global warming. A new energy pricing regime will be introduced to give nuclear operators a financial edge. Planning rules will also be streamlined to make it harder for campaigners to block new plants. But the planning changes will apply only south of the Border and Scottish ministers will retain their veto on any new stations in Scotland. That prompted Jack McConnell, the First Minister, to claim last night that the review had cleared the way to a nuclear-free Scotland. As well as nuclear power, the review also sets a course to increase the proportion of British electricity produced from wind, wave and solar power. Renewable sources currently produce less than 5 per cent of UK electricity, but the government aims to increase that to 20 per cent. Mr McConnell has signalled that he sees a major expansion of the renewables sector as a viable alternative to replacing Scotland's two nuclear power plants - at Hunterston and Torness - at the end of their working lives. The review, the First Minister said, effectively endorses that plan. "I welcome the emphasis the review puts on renewables. Scotland has vast potential to exploit energy sources like marine and wind power," he said. " I have no doubt Scotland's most important contribution to the UK's energy future can and will be through renewables." To this regard, the Executive aims to put in place new planning measures that will allow windfarms to come on stream more quickly. Nicol Stephen, the deputy first minister, said: "I am determined to reduce the time taken to process applications for renewables developments." The Prime Minister, trying to fend off environmentalist charges that he is fixated on nuclear power, insisted the review was about delivering a balanced "mix" of energy production. "People will focus on nuclear. We've had nuclear power in this country for half a century," Mr Blair said. "We've got to replace them, but we've got to do more of the rest of the stuff." Unveiling the review to MPs at Westminster, Alistair Darling, the Industry Secretary, confirmed that ministers in London will respect the Executive's right to block any new nuclear stations. Nuclear power accounts for almost 20 per cent of UK electricity, but Mr Darling said that is likely to drop to just 6 per cent by 2020. "Our analysis suggests that, alongside other low-carbon generating options, a new generation of nuclear power stations could make a contribution to reducing carbon emissions and reducing our reliance on imported energy," he said. Confounding expectations that the review would set detailed targets for the number of new nuclear plants or the share of UK energy generated by nuclear power, Mr Darling said the government would leave such decisions to the energy industry. The review concluded it is "likely" that any future reactors will be built on the site of existing plants. There are ten operational nuclear generating facilities in England. "It is for the generators to come forward with proposals. What we are doing is setting out a clear direction so the generators can make their decisions in relation to that," Mr Darling told MPs. Central to that framework will be a new regime in England that could impose time-limits on planning processes and deny local authorities the right to block applications to build stations. Mr Darling said he would consult on new planning rules and bring forward detailed proposals in the autumn. Similar changes are already passing through the Scottish Parliament, but the Executive has promised that the rules will not be used to fast-track new nuclear power stations. The absence of clear government projections for nuclear power production drew immediate criticism from the Conservatives. "We have been told for months that urgent decisions must be made now, that delaying these decisions would risk the lights going out," said Alan Duncan, the Tory industry spokesman. "Yet the review puts off making any of the big decisions and instead proposes new consultations and areas to consider." The Scottish Executive has said it will oppose any new nuclear stations until the issue of disposing of nuclear waste has been resolved. The government's Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is expected to confirm next week that it believes deep underground storage is the best option. The panel will also say that storage sites should be located only with the consent of local communities, meaning Scotland will once again be able to opt out of storing nuclear waste. In the Commons, Mr Darling confirmed that while the government is subsidising the clean-up costs of existing nuclear waste, the industry will be expected to bear all the costs of waste produced by new nuclear plants. Carve-up will only add to sense of imbalance across the country THE government's energy review might appear to be a good deal for Jack McConnell and Scotland, but it also masks a series of hidden dangers which could cause trouble for years to come. It now appears as if Scotland will be able to concentrate on renewables with England becoming the home for the next generation of nuclear power stations. In this way, Scotland could get access to a secure flow of electricity without having to take on the risks - environmental and political - of new nuclear stations. But that neat little carve-up will only add to the feeling, already shared by many in England, that Scotland is getting far too favourable deal from devolution and something needs to be done to address that. Ministers are no doubt relieved they do not need a vote in the Commons to drive through their nuclear plans, aware that the sight of Scottish Labour MPs trooping into the division lobbies to impose new nuclear stations on England, without a similar imposition on Scotland, would surely have driven some anti-nuclear English Labour backbenchers to open revolt. But the problem for the government is that ministers are planning to introduce radical new planning powers for England which will allow them to overrule councils and site new nuclear power stations, with or without the support of local authorities. This is where the parliamentary battle over nuclear power stations will be played out and it is here that Labour rebels will make their stand, objecting to the new planning powers as a way of protesting about new nuclear power stations. The new laws will undoubtedly be pushed through, but almost certainly with the help of Scottish Labour MPs who will not have to cope with either the backlash of new nuclear power stations on their doorsteps or with the anger of their local authorities, furious at the new planning powers. But what does yesterday's review mean for Mr McConnell and the Scottish Executive? In the short-term, it will provide a timely boost for Mr McConnell and Labour ahead of the election. The First Minister was desperate to make sure that the 2007 election campaign did not turn into a referendum on nuclear energy and he may now get his wish. Aware that he would be squeezed from an anti-nuclear stance by the Nationalists, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, Mr McConnell will be delighted that the whole issue has been "parked", pretty effectively, until after next May's elections. But in the longer-term, England's burden in carrying the risks of nuclear energy and producing the electricity to heat a nuclear-free Scotland could count against Labour, if only because it will provide concrete evidence of yet another imbalance in the devolution settlement. The one spark of light in the gloom for England, however, is that when the time comes to decommission these nuclear power stations, it will be the whole of Britain that will pay and with estimates for the clean-up of current stations heading up to £90 billion, that will not be an insignificant cost. The whole of Britain will pay, that is, if there is still a Britain by that stage. HAMISH MACDONELL Review has power to alter the way we live and travel NUCLEAR power and the government's plans for renewable sources like wind, wave and solar power may have received the majority of the political attention yesterday, but the Energy Review also contained energy-saving measures that could have profound consequences for the way we live and travel. Changes in energy market rules could also have important consequences for large employers, in both the private and public sectors. "We must save energy. The new measures we're bringing forward will help us to save energy in our homes, in businesses and in our public buildings, saving carbon and saving money," Alistair Darling, the industry secretary, told MPs. Paying for what they produce MARKET-BASED regimes that effectively make organisations pay for every tonne of carbon dioxide they produce are at the heart of the government's future energy strategy. Under emissions trading rules, companies that cut their carbon can effectively sell the unused output to other producers, creating a financial incentive to emit less. The government plans to strengthen the EU Emissions Trading Scheme when its current terms expire in 2012. Large organisations like supermarkets could be brought into the scheme. Role of transport TRANSPORT has a vital part to play in efforts to save energy and cut carbon dioxide emissions, the government said. "We will encourage the use of lower-carbon fuels, especially bio-fuels," the industry secretary, Alistair Darling, told MPs, promising a new "Transport Innovation Strategy" later this year. The Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation, which aims to make sure 5 per cent of all transport fuel is from renewables, could also be extended. Setting a trap BRITAIN's carbon dioxide emissions could be slashed by using technology to trap carbon and store it in cavities under the North Sea. Such "carbon capture" schemes could reduce UK emissions by as much as 90 per cent, Mr Darling claimed yesterday. He promised to "remove regulatory barriers to carbon capture and storage", and intensify international co-operation with partners such as Norway. The Treasury will set out progress on carbon capture in the autumn. Metered by the minute HOUSEHOLDERS could be issued with meters showing how much electricity they are consuming minute by minute, the government signalled yesterday. The proposal was part of a wider drive to make individuals use electricity more responsibly. Electrical appliances left on standby consume about 7 per cent of all electricity produced in Britain, so manufacturers will be encouraged to make appliances without standby settings. And the government wants households to make use of "real-time displays" of energy use. -------- alternative energy Ethanol Maker Altra Breaks Ground for Ohio Plant REUTERS US: July 12, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/37209/story.htm LOS ANGELES - Ethanol maker Altra Inc. of Los Angeles on Tuesday broke ground on a 60 million gallon-per-year ethanol plant in eastern Ohio. The US$100 million plant in Coshocton is to begin production by October 2007, said Larry Gross, president and chief executive officer of Altra, a privately held firm. Aiming to become one of the biggest ethanol and biofuels producers in the United States, Altra plans to purchase and expand ethanol plants and building new ones like the one in Coshocton. "We're looking to build a national footprint of ethanol plants across the country from the West Coast to the East Coast and places in between," Gross said in a telephone interview. The Coshocton plant is the second owned by Altra. Last week, it completed the purchase of a 25,000 gallon-per-year plant in Goshen in central California. Gross said Altra plans to expand production there to 35,000 gallons per year. The Ohio plant is officially to be owned by Coshocton Ethanol LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Altra Inc. "As energy prices escalate and our energy needs grow, we must focus on curtailing our dependence on foreign oil and developing our own clean, affordable sources of energy," Ohio Governor Bob Taft said. "Today's ground-breaking confirms Ohio's strength as an agricultural state and reaffirms our commitment to renewable energy sources." The plant will employ 41, Gross said. The Goshen plant employs 28. Altra's lead investors include several prominent private equity firms and funds including Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Omninet Private Equity LLC, Sage Capital Partners L.P., Angeleno Group LLC and Khosla Ventures. Ethanol, or ethyl alcohol, is made mainly from corn. It is mixed with gasoline to help it burn cleaner. Current US production of ethanol, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, is about 4.8 billion gallons per year or about 330,000 barrels per day. Oil industry experts say that must rise about 1.5 billion gallons yearly or 100,000 bpd to meet growing demand. In the meantime, exports from countries such as Brazil are expected to meet demand. ---- Britain Signals Increased Target for Biofuels Use REUTERS UK: July 12, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/37201/story.htm LONDON - Britain on Tuesday signalled its intention to raise its target for the amount of motor fuel produced from renewable sources such as grain and oilseed crops in a major energy review. "We also intend that the level of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation should rise above five percent after 2010/11," the review issued by the Department of Trade and Industry said. The five percent target was set in November 2005 and required a 20-fold increase in biofuels use when issued. Plans have since been unveiled by private companies to build several major new plants in Britain to produce biofuels. "Provided certain conditions are met, and for example we were able to raise the level of obligation to 10 percent by 2015, we would save a further million tonnes of carbon a year, equivalent to removing 1 million cars from our roads," it said. Biofuels can be substituted for fossil fuels and are seen as a way to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases which are believed to contribute to global warming. Fuels normally consist of a maximum of 5 percent biofuels in Europe due to limits imposed by manufacturer warranties although in some parts of the world much higher limits are normal. In Brazil, many cars run on 100 percent bioethanol. Andrew Owens, chief executive of UK biofuels supplier Greenergy, said a 10 percent target by 2015 would be "catching up with where the market is anyway," noting he expected use to be closer to 10 percent than 5 percent by 2012. European regulators are considering raising the amount of biofuels that can be blended into conventional motor fuel to 10 percent, with a decision expected before 2010. Owens said an increase in the inclusion rate would be a huge boost for the biofuels industry. The Renewable Energy Association welcome the increased biofuels target and Britain's endorsement of more widespread use of renewables although chief executive Philip Wolfe called on the government to back tat up with effective policy measures. ---- Ethanol Maker Altra Breaks Ground for Ohio Plant REUTERS US: July 12, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/37209/newsDate/12-Jul-2006/story.htm LOS ANGELES - Ethanol maker Altra Inc. of Los Angeles on Tuesday broke ground on a 60 million gallon-per-year ethanol plant in eastern Ohio. The US$100 million plant in Coshocton is to begin production by October 2007, said Larry Gross, president and chief executive officer of Altra, a privately held firm. Aiming to become one of the biggest ethanol and biofuels producers in the United States, Altra plans to purchase and expand ethanol plants and building new ones like the one in Coshocton. "We're looking to build a national footprint of ethanol plants across the country from the West Coast to the East Coast and places in between," Gross said in a telephone interview. The Coshocton plant is the second owned by Altra. Last week, it completed the purchase of a 25,000 gallon-per-year plant in Goshen in central California. Gross said Altra plans to expand production there to 35,000 gallons per year. The Ohio plant is officially to be owned by Coshocton Ethanol LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Altra Inc. "As energy prices escalate and our energy needs grow, we must focus on curtailing our dependence on foreign oil and developing our own clean, affordable sources of energy," Ohio Governor Bob Taft said. "Today's ground-breaking confirms Ohio's strength as an agricultural state and reaffirms our commitment to renewable energy sources." The plant will employ 41, Gross said. The Goshen plant employs 28. Altra's lead investors include several prominent private equity firms and funds including Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Omninet Private Equity LLC, Sage Capital Partners L.P., Angeleno Group LLC and Khosla Ventures. Ethanol, or ethyl alcohol, is made mainly from corn. It is mixed with gasoline to help it burn cleaner. Current US production of ethanol, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, is about 4.8 billion gallons per year or about 330,000 barrels per day. Oil industry experts say that must rise about 1.5 billion gallons yearly or 100,000 bpd to meet growing demand. In the meantime, exports from countries such as Brazil are expected to meet demand.