NucNews August 2, 2006



-------- NUCLEAR 


-------- accidents and safety

Transformer explodes at nuke plant

Lake County, IL News-Sun Staff Report
08/02/06

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/newssun/top/5_1_WA02_NUKEPLANT_S10802.htm

ZION — An insulator handling incoming power appeared to have exploded Tuesday afternoon at the shuttered Exelon nuclear plant on the city's lakefront.

Emergency personnel responded to the scene after reports of an explosion at 5 p.m.

"What we know is that we called for an explosion involving a transformer at the power plant," said Zion Fire Department Battalion Chief Greg Friedrich. "We did not see any fire or smoke at this time."

Friedrich said the sprinkler on the north side of the building was activated near the suspect transformer. "There was not any additional fire suppression needed by the fire department," he said.

Exelon Nuclear reported a transformer was destroyed due to a faulty component. "I think that's what people heard was the loud pop on this component," said Craig Nesbit, Exelon Nuclear spokesman, adding that the breakdown could have been heat-related.

The Zion plant no longer generates electricity, but it takes in power for some continuing operations, including management of thousands of pounds of spent nuclear fuel rods.

----

N.Y. nuclear plant's sirens malfunction

By JIM FITZGERALD, Associated Press Writer Wed Aug 2, 2006

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060802/ap_on_re_us/nuclear_plant_sirens_2

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. - The 156 emergency sirens that are designed to alert nearby residents of an emergency at the Indian Point nuclear power plants were out of service for more than six hours Wednesday because of a computer malfunction, officials said.

The sirens, which have a history of operating problems and are due to be replaced by next year, were out from 12:06 a.m. to 6:35 a.m., said Jim Steets, spokesman for Indian Point owner Entergy Nuclear Northeast.

He said the malfunction was unrelated to heat and power problems currently plaguing the area. He said a computer program that continuously monitors the sirens malfunctioned, making it impossible to activate them.

Had an emergency occurred at Indian Point during the outage, a backup plan involving automatic phone calls, trucks with loudspeakers and radio and TV bulletins would have been implemented to alert residents within 10 miles of the plants.

Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said NRC inspectors would monitor Entergy's investigation of what caused Wednesday's problem.

Steets said Indian Point emergency planning workers were immediately alerted to the problem by a recently added feature that automatically calls them if there's a malfunction. A year ago, the sirens stood useless for nearly six hours when power was lost to a signal transmitter and the failure went undiscovered.

Westchester's emergency services commissioner, Tony Sutton, said he was not notified of the problem until after 4 a.m.

"I would have liked it earlier," he said. "If there had been a radiological emergency, say, before then, I would have gotten a call that said, 'We have a problem and by the way the sirens are out.'"

The NRC has demanded, and Entergy has promised, a state-of-the-art siren system by January.

The siren system also was down for more than three hours in March when it locked up during a test and Entergy took it down to repair it. In addition, regular tests of the system usually result in partial failures.

The nuclear plants are on the Hudson River about 35 miles north of midtown Manhattan. Since the terrorist attacks of 2001, many residents of the lower Hudson Valley have called for the plants to be closed, but federal authorities have found them to be safe and the emergency precautions to be sufficient.



-------- australia

Call to Enrich Uranium in Australia Stirs Debate

By RAYMOND BONNER
Published: August 2, 2006 NY TIMES

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/world/asia/02australia.html?ex=1155096000&en=8f5a3f913c4ea54f&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS

JAKARTA, Indonesia, Aug. 1 — At a time when the United States wants to reduce the amount of nuclear material washing around the world, one of Washington’s major allies, Australia, is on the verge of expanding its production and export of uranium.

The Australian prime minister, John Howard, one of President Bush’s staunchest allies, says the country should also begin enriching uranium, a move directly counter to Mr. Bush’s call for the uranium enrichment club to be limited to the handful of countries that already have the capacity.

Mr. Howard, leader of the center-right Liberal Party, says he does not see his country as confronting Washington, but as pursuing its best economic interests.

For Australia not to reap greater income from its vast uranium deposits would be akin to Saudi Arabia not exploiting its oil, Mr. Howard said in a major speech recently on the country’s energy policy.

He said he had not informed Mr. Bush of his nuclear policies. “I don’t need to talk to the U.S. president every day about everything that pops up,” said Mr. Howard, who has been criticized by some Australians for talking — and listening — to Mr. Bush too often. “I mean, he’s running his own country, and I’m prime minister of Australia.”

The Bush administration has remained silent about Mr. Howard’s proposals. “We’ve made no official statement on the issue,” a press aide at the American Embassy in Canberra said Tuesday in response to a request for a comment.

At home, Mr. Howard’s nuclear proposals have set off a spirited debate, marked by a dramatic U-turn on uranium mining by the leader of the opposition liberal Labor Party.

For his part, Mr. Howard says Australia has the largest reserves of uranium in the world, and it does not make good economic sense not to enrich uranium. Such a policy is reminiscent of what he called “one of the great historical anomalies of the Australian economy.”

A few decades ago, sheep were the backbone of the Australian economy, and most of their wool was exported.

“We had the best wool in the world and we sent it overseas to be processed and we bought it back at a much higher price,” Mr. Howard said. “That always struck people as rather odd. I would be keen to avoid that again.”

In the 1940’s, Australia undertook serious uranium exploration at the request of the United States, which needed it for its embryonic nuclear weapons program. Later, the country became a leader in the movement to halt nuclear proliferation, and in the 1970’s, antinuclear demonstrations drew tens of thousands to the streets in Sydney.

In 1983, the liberal-left Labor Party came to power, and it quickly adopted what became known as a “no new mines” policy. There were three uranium mines in the country at the time, so it also became known as the “three mines only” policy, and it is still in effect.

But perhaps not for much longer.

In the address, on July 17, Mr. Howard declared that Australia could become an “energy superpower.” It is already the world’s largest exporter of coal, and within a few years is expected to become the second largest supplier of liquefied natural gas, he said.

Then he turned to uranium.

“With close to 40 percent of the world’s known low-cost uranium deposits, for Australia to bury its head in the sand on nuclear energy is akin to Saudi Arabia turning her back on global oil developments,” Mr. Howard said.

Within the opposition Labor Party, there is fierce division over what the country’s nuclear policy should be.

A week after Mr. Howard presented his vision, the Labor Party leader, Kim Beazley, laid out his energy policy. In a speech to the Sydney Institute, a conservative research organization, Mr. Beazley said it was time for the Labor Party to drop its “no new mines” policy.

Mr. Beazley said it was in the national interest to mine more uranium, especially since China was likely to double its demand for Australian uranium in the next 15 years.

Mr. Beazley said he knew his decision would not be popular in his own party, and he was right.

“I will vigorously oppose any watering down of Labor’s uranium policy,” said the party’s environment spokesman, Anthony Albanese. “You can guarantee that uranium mining will lead to nuclear waste. You can’t guarantee that uranium mining won’t lead to nuclear weapons.”

Mr. Beazley was adamant, however, that the Labor Party was still opposed to uranium enrichment.



-------- business

DoE May Expand Industry Involvement In Nuke-Dump Licensing Process

August 02, 2006 The Peacock Report

http://tpr.typepad.com/thepeacockreport/2006/08/doe_clarifies_n.html

Private-sector nuclear energy providers will have a chance to bid on three projects – rather than just one, as previously intended – to help the U.S. Dept. of Energy (DoE) obtain Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval to build a radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

TPR reported in late June that DoE was reaching out to industry to review, and possibly revise, a draft waste-disposal license application, the approval of which requires NRC blessing prior to allowing DoE’s prime contractor – Bechtel SAIC, Co. – to develop and open an underground storage facility. The license review and consultation, which initially was one segment of three distinct DoE audits of the repository project, has itself been tentatively divided into three contracting actions -- the overall goal of which involves the hiring a team of experts to review "the entire license application and repository design" and ensure the draft documents satisfy applicable NRC regulations.

DoE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) late last week issued a revised "sources sought" notice to industry, explaining that it is "considering" obtaining these "license defense" services via three separate contracts whose potential value remains undisclosed. Nuclear transportation planning and implementation activities are among the areas that these contracts would support. Second is the provision of "expert support" to OCRWM in "completing, submitting and potentially defending a license application." The third segment involves assistance with professional and technical management and administrative affairs during the licensing process.

Potential contractors must have "significant experience and expertise" in NRC licensing, nuclear facility design and operations, tunnel design and operations, and working in an NRC regulated environment, the notice says..

Contractors specifically must be capable of assisting DOE by:

(1) Ensuring the sufficiency and readiness of licensing documents for filing with NRC.

(2) Carrying out technical reviews of design documents and operating plans for surface nuclear facilities;

(3) Technical reviews of tunneling plans and underground facility designs;

(4) Technical review of operating plans for subsurface facilities;

(5) Technical reviews of science and performance assessments;

(6) Preparing an organization to be an NRC licensee'

(7) Explaining highly technical subject matter to a non-technical audience.

Work will be performed at DoE headquarters in Washington, D.C. as well as in Las Vegas.

----

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority invites bids for Magnox trading co

08.02.2006, 11:52 AM (AFX)

http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2006/08/02/afx2922194.html

LONDON - The government's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is continuing the sell-off of British Nuclear Fuels by inviting bids for the trading body that serves four of the UK's Magnox nuclear power stations.

The NDA today issued a tender seeking bidders for Energy Sales and Trading Ltd (ESTL), which sells electricity generated at Dungeness A, Sizewell A, Oldbury and Wylfa. All are due to shut by 2010 and until then, the buyer will manage a process that generated 500 mln stg in 2005/06 but which will get progressively smaller as plants shut down.

The deal will also involve handling the sale of power generated by a 160 MW co-generation plant at Sellafield, and a 28 MW hydro plant and providing EU Emission Trading Scheme carbon emission permits for various NDA sites.

The sell-off follows last year's sale of Westinghouse to Toshiba and will be followed by the sale of British Nuclear Group, details of which the government will release imminently.

newsdesk@afxnews.com 


<a name="du"></a>

-------- depleted uranium

The Global Threat of DU

Wednesday, 2 August 2006 Scoop (NZ)
Opinion: Dr Robert G Anderson

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0608/S00005.htm

Adding to the horrors of the current offensive into Lebanon, with Afghanistan close to anarchy and Iraq drifting into civil war, Bush is now rushing depleted uranium (DU) bombs to Israel. This supports their colossal act of homicide and will increase further global contamination by radioactive DU particles.

Laser guided GBU-28 bunker penetration bombs and much of the tank ammunition, such as M829 A1 shells, have DU penetrators built into them. What is even more galling is the likelihood that Rakon NZ probably manufactured the software to guide these obscene weapons.[i]

Although UN reports have stated that the use of the DU weapons is in violation of numerous laws and UN conventions, its use continues. As Dr Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon’s DU project, said, "We must do what is right for the citizens of the world - ban DU."

The silence of most of the media is deafening over this increasing menace to our global atmosphere. Thousands of horrendous genetic deformities in Kosovar, Afghan and Iraqi children - both immediately apparent and left as a future legacy - are virtually ignored. And increasing numbers of US war veterans find they are also now having deformed and mentally damaged children.[ii] All this despite Pentagon assurances that DU is harmless.[iii]

The dangers of radiation damage from both nuclear plants and weaponry have been well documented since the first nuclear power plants began operation.[iv] Gagged from getting their message out to the public, scientists resorted to writing books, like Professor Ernest Sternglass’s Secret Fallout.[v]

The millions of kilograms of depleted uranium in storage are a by-product of plants that produce enriched uranium. What better way to use it up than in weapons? Almost twice as dense as lead, with pyrophoric properties, DU burns its way through the toughest armour plate like a warm knife through butter. Converting its kinetic energy to heat, it burns at 3000oC to 5000oC. At these temperatures, the depleted uranium vaporises to form an ultra-fine ceramic dust[vi] which rises into the atmosphere and eventually into the troposphere. These particles hitch a ride to wherever the winds carry them. Like the debris from Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, the particles drift as a poisonous radioactive gas to fall with rain and snow onto whichever country they settle over.

Thousands of kilograms of DU penetrators were vaporised in the Balkans, Afghanistan, both Gulf Wars and now in Lebanon, thus adding to the toxic load our atmosphere must carry. Thanks to US efforts, the Iraqi and Afghan population is now free to live in a radioactive homeland. When will this madness stop? For years, we have fought to maintain a test ban treaty after scientists discovered the inevitable increases in neonatal deaths and early childhood deformities[vii] which followed nuclear tests.

Constant denials and cover-ups are made by the nuclear industry which maintains spurious “safety levels.” Many renowned independent scientists have pointed out that there is no “safe level” of radiation.[viii] While ingested uranium can be excreted from the human body, inhaled particles cannot. When inhaled, it settles into the lowest parts of the human lung to irradiate the surrounding tissue for ever.[ix] Cancer can be triggered by just one alpha particle. One gram of uranium - the size of a full stop in this sentence - emits 12,000 alpha particles per second into the surrounding tissues. Once inhaled, depleted-uranium particles irradiate the internal organs and do irreparable damage. DU-related genetic damage is happening to people of the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Courageous scientists – e.g. Professors George Wald and Ernest Sternglass, and many others - help keep alive the debate on the health effects of low-level radiation, a debate that the military, the nuclear power industry and indentured scientists have tried to bury. Without media coverage, how are the public to know that their world and that of their children and grandchildren[x] is inexorably being poisoned by radioactive weapons? According to the United Nations, an estimated 50,000 deformed children[xi] have been born to veterans who were directly sprayed with Agent Orange or exposed through contaminated food and water. How many more must we accept from DU contamination?

One study of Gulf War veterans found that 67% of their children, conceived after they returned from war, were born with severe illnesses, missing eyes, blood infections, respiratory problems and fused fingers.[xii] Scientist, Dr Rosalie Bertell, maintains: “Desert Storm veterans, along with the people of Iraq and Kuwait, are victims of one of the latest military experiments on human beings. I believe that the ignorance was culpable and criminal.”

Rather than being ashamed that a local magazine,[xiii] Uncensored, was more willing than they to publish the truth, major media outlets deluded themselves into believing that the story need not be covered. It was "old news." The average New Zealander knows nothing about depleted uranium, any that do most likely saw reports on DU’s remarkable armour-piercing abilities. Its deadly long-term effects on people and the environment were never mentioned. Why should oligarchs such as Tony Blair and George Bush continue to ruin Earth’s environment? Even Britain’s Peers have requested that Blair be stripped of his power to go to war without vote.[xiv]

Must we now bear witness to even more childhood cancers and deformities, in Lebanese children? Israel’s onslaught in Lebanon to cripple Hizbollah has so far claimed 355 lives, mostly women and children, and this figure increases daily.

As Albert Einstein said: “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” Isn’t it time our media spoke out for all our sakes?

Dr Robert G Anderson
Member Union of Concerned Scientists

Bio
Robert has taught physics and nuclear medicine for two decades at tertiary level and is now spending time publishing books and articles on the environment and social responsibility. His immediate concern is that the use of depleted uranium weapons must cease if we are to avoid increasing global contamination.

References:

[i] Government bombs out over Rakon., 15 June 06: The government's green light to Rakon' export of military grade oscillators sets a dangerous precedent. www.greens.org.nz/campaigns/peace/

[ii] Congenital defects in Iraqi children and those of US Gulf War veterans are identical, http://home.clara.net/heureka/gaia/du.htm

[iii] Pentagon Hides DU Dangers to Deny Medical Care to Vets, www.americanfreepress.net/html/du_syndrome.html

[iv] Lea, D.E., 1962 Actions of radiations on living cells. London Cambridge University Press.

[v] Sternglass E.J. Secret Fallout, McGraw-Hill Book Company

[vi] These particles are approaching a gas and pass through the finest filters available.

[vii] Sternglass E.J. June 1969 Can the infants survive? Bulletin of the Atomic scientists 25:26 also
Sternglass E.J. June 1963 Cancer: relation of prenatal radiation to development of the disease in childhood. Science 140:1102-1104.

[viii] Medical Consequences of Depleted Uranium. Dr H Caldicott., www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch/caldicott/medico.htm

[ix] DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years – it’s there forever.

[x] Silent Genocide Depleted Uranium (DU) www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Silent-Genocide25mar04.htm

[xi] US Vets Join Vietnamese Agent Orange Victims, www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005G.shtml

[xii] http://www.stop-du.org/

[xiii] Uncensored http://uncensored.co.nz/

[xiv] www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2006/07/27/afx2908798.html 

----

400,000 depleted uranium bullets stored at U.S. Kadena base in Okinawa in 2001

August 2, 2006 Mainichi Daily News

http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20060802p2a00m0na021000c.html

Nearly 400,000 depleted uranium bullets were stored at a U.S. base in Okinawa Prefecture in 2001, according to documents that U.S. forces disclosed under the country's Freedom of Information Act.

It is equal to half the number of such rounds that the United States used during the Gulf War in 1991.

The U.S. Air Force Kadena base admitted in May 2000 that it stored depleted uranium bullets at its ammunition depot, but this is the first time that a figure has been released.

In an interview with the Mainichi, a spokesman for Kadena base refused to disclose the specific number of depleted uranium bullets it currently owns or the location where they are stored.

The documents that a U.S. peace activist received from U.S. forces show that 398,768 depleted uranium bullets of five different types were stored at Kadena base in 2001. They also show that a total of 2.74 million rounds were kept at three U.S. bases in South Korea.

A South Korean peace activist, who analyzed the documents, is scheduled to deliver a speech on the issue during an international conference to consider a ban on depleted uranium ammunition that will be held in Hiroshima from Thursday to Sunday. (Mainichi)

----

Stryker Brigade training area work suspended after crew nears sacred site

AUDREY MCAVOY - The Associated Press  
Wednesday, August 02, 2006

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/188236/4/
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1995297.php

HONOLULU -- Workers have indefinitely suspended clearing an Army firing range after an unexploded ordnance cleanup crew last month scattered dirt on a fence protecting a sacred Hawaiian site, officials said Tuesday.

The crew has been digging up mortar and small arms shells dating back almost a century to create a maneuvering ground for the Stryker Brigade Combat Team being formed at Oahu's Schofield Barracks.

But two weeks ago dirt from the crew's bulldozer blades landed on a fence separating a heiau -- a traditional Hawaiian place of worship -- from the field being cleared.

The Army asked contractors to halt the work after hearing complaints from Native Hawaiian groups.

"We have these concerns that were brought up by the cultural monitors and we want these addressed before we proceed," said Troy Griffin, a spokesman for Schofield Barracks.

Griffin said the cultural monitors have further complained about not having greater access to the clearing site to keep track of what the contractors are doing.

He said the cultural monitors were restricted in their visits because of the dangers posed by the ordnance being cleared.

The workers have found World War I era chemical weapons and depleted uranium ammunition from the 1960s while clearing the decades-old firing range.

Lance Foster, who heads a division at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs responsible for protecting traditional rites and practices, said he was disappointed by the incident.

Foster said the Army's live-fire exercises in Makua Valley and this latest development were among a series of events making it difficult for Hawaiians to protect their traditions.

"Hawaiians are just seeing one thing after another, one agreement after another not being followed, and they're tired," said Foster.

He added his office was considering suing the Army if the two sides couldn't fix the problem.

Griffin said the sullied fence was close to 100 feet away from the heiau.

But Foster said it didn't matter how far the fence was from the heiau. He said a heiau was not like a church, which wouldn't be harmed if someone dug up the street in front.

Heiau are placed in a spot because of the mana, or divine power, of an entire land area, he said.

"It's sort of kind of a marker and an enhancer of the sacredness of that piece of land," Foster said.

He added he believed Army leaders sincerely wanted to protect sacred Hawaiian sites but were having trouble implementing their policies.

Even so, Foster said Army leaders and Hawaiian groups had discussions over the issue a few days ago "that seemed to be positive."

The Army hopes to complete construction of the new training ground, a Battle Area Complex, by November 2007. The training ground will be used by the Stryker brigade and other soldiers from Schofield Barracks.

----

Armored wolves: Bradley fighting vehicles

By Illinois State Rifle Association
Rock River Times, From the Aug. 2-8, 2006, issue

http://www.rockrivertimes.com/index.pl?cmd=viewstory&cat=23&id=13930

Like hungry wolves in the night, the Soviet-made T72 tanks waited for their prey to get closer. The Iraqi crews would annihilate the approaching American infidels on this April day in 2003 … or so they thought.

But the Apache troop from the Army’s Seventh Cavalry, commanded by Capt. Clay Lyle, had already been given data about the enemy by our Air Force. He knew there were 22 Iraqi tanks dug in and waiting for him.

As Capt. Lyle’s force of tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles headed for their enemies, our fighter pilots pounded the Iraqi tanks from the air. What Capt. Lyle and our Air Force did not see yet was the other battalion of Iraqi tanks hidden between them and their original targets.

Outnumbered 2-1, Capt. Lyle’s force now had no choice but to fire every big gun they had as fast as they could. With turrets swinging left, right, left again, dead ahead, right…the fusillade of American firepower was deafening, and very effective. The intense battle that seemed so long was over in about 10 minutes. The score: U.S. Army: 20 pieces of Iraqi armor; the Iraqi Army: 0!

One of the most amazing discoveries made in this battle was that the Bradleys could take out a heavily-armored enemy tank with their depleted uranium ammo. In fact, one Bradley took out two tanks, and another Bradley took out three tanks!

The good folks in Illinois may have had an indirect hand in this battle because much of the ammunition used in the Bradley fighting vehicles is produced at the General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems plant, located near Marion, Ill. This General Dynamics facility produces several types of medium-caliber ammunition for military forces, including 20 mm, 25 mm, and 30 mm ammunition. The 20 mm ammo is used in many fighter planes, including the F14, F15, F16 and F18. The 25 mm ammo is used in the Bradley fighting vehicles and other light-armored units. The 30 mm ammo is used in the Air Force’s awesome A10 Warthog anti-tank plane.

When Teddy Roosevelt told Americans a century ago we should “walk softly and carry a big stick,” he could not have imagined the “big stick” that is now at the disposal of the USA to help keep our nation and our allies free. The civilians in Illinois who work to provide our military with the best equipment in the world should be proud of their vital role in maintaining our nation’s security.

(Some information for this story came from www.cnn.com)

This article was provided by the Illinois State Rifle Association. For more information about the Association, call 635-3198 or visit www.irsa.org.



-------- europe

Spain's govt fines Endesa, Iberdrola nuclear plant 1.6 mln eur

08.02.2006, 11:09 AM (AFX)

http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2006/08/02/afx2922070.html
	
MADRID - Spain's government said it has fined the Vandellos II nuclear power plant, jointly run by Endesa SA and Iberdrola SA, a total of 1.6 mln eur for an incident at the plant Aug 25, 2004.

In a statement, the Ministry of Industry said the fine is the largest of its kind in Spain 'because security at the nuclear plants is an absolute priority.'

The fine consists of three parts relating to the rupture of piping due to poor maintenance, a failure to carry out repairs ordered by the Nuclear Security Council (CSN) and for hiding information on corroded pipes from the CSN.

afxmadrid@afxnews.com 



-------- iran

Iran's Threat to Cut Oil Flow in Nuclear Dispute May Backfire

(Bloomberg) August 2, 2006 00:06 EDT

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=ayxk6vSDx2ik

Iran's leaders, threatening to disrupt oil supplies in any confrontation with the U.S. and Europe over a suspected quest for a nuclear bomb, may be pointing a lethal weapon at themselves.

Cutting off the flow of crude would deprive Iran of about $5 billion a month -- by far the main contributor to the country's budget -- at a time when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is on a spending spree to deliver on promises that brought him to power last year.

``In case of sanctions, whether self-imposed or imposed by the United Nations, the president's prosperity program will collapse,'' said Saeed Laylaz, a political analyst and a former economist at the Ministry of Industry and Mines in Tehran. ``Our people are not ready to endure strong sanctions.''

A UN Security Council resolution passed on July 31 gives Iran a month to end its nuclear enrichment activity or face the threat of economic penalties. As the U.S., France, Britain and Germany have built support at the UN to challenge Iran, Iranian leaders have raised the specter of shaking the world oil market.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's top decision maker, said on June 4 that the U.S. could ``seriously endanger energy flow in the region'' by acting against Iran's nuclear program. Two weeks later, Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hameneh was more specific, saying Iran would use ``all available means, including oil'' if its ``interests'' came under attack.

Risk of Retaliation

Iran supplies China with 4 percent of its oil; France, 7 percent; Korea, 9 percent; Japan, 10 percent; Italy, 11 percent; Belgium, 14 percent; Turkey, 22 percent; and Greece, 24 percent, according to May data from the Eurasia Group, a New York-based political-risks consulting firm.

``A halt to oil exports, although a credible threat for a limited period of time, maybe a week, would rapidly fire back on its economy and people,'' analyst Heinrich Matthee of London- based Control Risks Group said. ``It's definitely not the country's first weapon of choice.''

Should Iran declare an oil embargo, the West could retaliate by cutting gasoline exports to Iran, which Matthee calls one of Iran's ``soft spots.''

Iran buys more than a third of its gasoline from other nations because it has failed to ease subsidies, cut waste and boost refining capacity. ``Iran is rushing to try and limit its dependence on gasoline imports because it knows it makes it vulnerable,'' Matthee said in an interview.

Gasoline Rationing

Earlier this year, Iran's parliament cut the budget for gasoline imports by 40 percent to $2.5 billion in a bid to limit consumption. The plan, due to start in September, has already been postponed until March -- officially because of delays with issuing ration cards, and unofficially because it is bound to create ``popular discontent,'' according to Control Risks.

Under the plan, Iranian drivers would be limited to as little as three liters (four-fifths of a gallon) a day, enough to drive only 11 miles (18 kilometers) with a Paykan car, a model owned by four in 10 Iranians.

Iran spent $25 billion on subsidies last year, or more than half the $44.6 billion it collected through crude oil exports. The government money means a liter of gasoline costs Iranian drivers 800 rials (9 U.S. cents), or 34 cents a gallon.

Windfall

Ahmadinejad counts on surging oil prices -- crude touched a record $78.40 a barrel on July 14 during fighting in Lebanon -- to finance his social program. Iran's oil revenue will rise 23 percent to $55 billion this year, Deputy Oil Minister Hadi Nejad- Hosseinian said in May.

Taking advantage of the windfall, Ahmadinejad asked parliament in January to approve a 27 percent increase in the state budget for 2006. He forced banks to lower lending rates and extended subsidies on basic commodities such as flour and rice.

The president also started the ``Imam Reza Love Fund,'' endowed with $1.3 billion, to help low-income Iranians get married and find houses and jobs.

Middle East history offers a cautionary lesson for Iran as it confronts the nuclear dispute, according to one analyst. When in 1973 the Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries cut their supplies to supporters of Israel because of the Yom Kippur War, their market share fell to about 30 percent from 50 percent during the next 10 years, said Jean- Pierre Favennec, an economist at l'Institut Francais du Petrole in Paris.

`Dangerous' Game

``This game can be more dangerous for producing countries than for consuming ones,'' because strategic reserves can be tapped to limit the effect of rising prices, Favennec said in an interview.

Hossein Kazempour Ardebili, Iran's OPEC representative, said he had ``no time'' to comment on the odds of Iran using oil as a weapon in case of an escalation over its nuclear program. Abdol- Samad Taagol, planning manager at National Iranian Tanker Co., declined to comment on plans in case of UN sanctions.

An interview request with Nejad-Hosseinian, deputy oil minister for international affairs, has been pending since June 15.

The nuclear issue has already hit several parts of Iran's economy. The Tehran Stock Exchange lost a quarter of its value last year, the biggest drop since the Islamic Revolution of the late 1970s and early 1980s. The slide has continued this year, with the main index dropping 12 percent through July 28.

Under the previous government of President Mohammad Khatami, the Tehran index climbed a record 116 percent in 2003. Khatami tried to open up the state-dominated economy while pushing for more investment from abroad.

Reduced Profits

Energy companies, including The Hague-based Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Norway's Statoil ASA and Japan's Inpex Corp., already complain they are facing reduced profits in Iran as development is hampered by administrative delays, technical glitches, tough contract terms and Iran's economic isolation.

``Like the U.S., Iran says that all options are on the table'' in the nuclear spat, ``but nobody likes shooting himself in the foot,'' said Siamak Namazi, managing director at Tehran- based Atieh Bahar Consulting, which advises foreign companies.

No major oil deal has been signed since August 2005, the month Ahmadinejad came to power, and the country has since been unable to compensate for the depletion of its older fields, erasing 400,000 barrels of oil production a day during the past 10 months, according to Bloomberg data.

Analysts including Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East specialist at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service in Washington, have said Iran could cause havoc by threatening or attacking oil tankers or terminals in the Strait of Hormuz.

`Reputation Damage'

About 17 million barrels a day of oil, or a fifth of the world's consumption, flows from the Persian Gulf region through the passage between Iran and Oman.

Attacking tankers would inflict long-lasting ``reputation damage while Iran is in the middle of a charm offensive to show its Arab neighbors the Islamic republic is a benevolent player,'' Namazi said.

Ahmadinejad's power in Iran ultimately may be tied to the nuclear issue.

``The president is gradually and deliberately isolating Iran from the rest of the world,'' said Laylaz, who worked as a campaign adviser to former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani last year, when he lost the run-off to Ahmadinejad. ``That way, it makes it easier for him to control the country.''

To contact the reporter on this story:
Marc Wolfensberger in Tehran at  mwolfens@bloomberg.net



-------- japan

The Hiroshima Myth

by John V. Denson
August 2, 2006 LewRockwell.com

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html

Every year during the first two weeks of August the mass news media and many politicians at the national level trot out the "patriotic" political myth that the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan in August of 1945 caused them to surrender, and thereby saved the lives of anywhere from five hundred thousand to one million American soldiers, who did not have to invade the islands. Opinion polls over the last fifty years show that American citizens overwhelmingly (between 80 and 90%) believe this false history which, of course, makes them feel better about killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians (mostly women and children) and saving American lives to accomplish the ending of the war.

The best book, in my opinion, to explode this myth is The Decision to Use the Bomb by Gar Alperovitz, because it not only explains the real reasons the bombs were dropped, but also gives a detailed history of how and why the myth was created that this slaughter of innocent civilians was justified, and therefore morally acceptable. The essential problem starts with President Franklin Roosevelt’s policy of unconditional surrender, which was reluctantly adopted by Churchill and Stalin, and which President Truman decided to adopt when he succeeded Roosevelt in April of 1945. Hanson Baldwin was the principal writer for The New York Times who covered World War II and he wrote an important book immediately after the war entitled Great Mistakes of the War. Baldwin concludes that the unconditional surrender policy ". . . was perhaps the biggest political mistake of the war . . . . Unconditional surrender was an open invitation to unconditional resistance; it discouraged opposition to Hitler, probably lengthened the war, costs us lives, and helped to lead to the present aborted peace."

The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the Emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945. The Japanese monarchy was one of the oldest in all of history dating back to 660 B.C. The Japanese religion added the belief that all the Emperors were the direct descendants of the sun goddess, Amaterasu. The reigning Emperor Herohito was the 124th in the direct line of descent. After the bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9 of 1945, and their surrender soon thereafter, the Japanese were allowed to keep their Emperor on the throne and he was not subjected to any war crimes trial. The Emperor, Herohito, came on the throne in 1926 and continued in his position until his death in 1989. Since President Truman, in effect, accepted the conditional surrender offered by the Japanese as early as May of 1945, the question is posed, "Why then were the bombs dropped?"

The author Alperovitz gives us the answer in great detail which can only be summarized here, but he states, "We have noted a series of Japanese peace feelers in Switzerland which OSS Chief William Donovan reported to Truman in May and June [1945]. These suggested, even at this point, that the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender might well be the only serious obstacle to peace. At the center of the explorations, as we also saw, was Allen Dulles, chief of OSS operations in Switzerland (and subsequently Director of the CIA). In his 1966 book The Secret Surrender, Dulles recalled that ‘On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimpson on what I had learned from Tokyo – they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.’" It is documented by Alperovitz that Stimpson reported this directly to Truman. Alperovitz further points out in detail the documentary proof that every top presidential civilian and military advisor, with the exception of James Byrnes, along with Prime Minister Churchill and his top British military leadership, urged Truman to revise the unconditional surrender policy so as to allow the Japanese to surrender and keep their Emperor. All this advice was given to Truman prior to the Potsdam Proclamation which occurred on July 26, 1945. This proclamation made a final demand upon Japan to surrender unconditionally or suffer drastic consequences.

Another startling fact about the military connection to the dropping of the bomb is the lack of knowledge on the part of General MacArthur about the existence of the bomb and whether it was to be dropped. Alperovitz states "MacArthur knew nothing about advance planning for the atomic bomb’s use until almost the last minute. Nor was he personally in the chain of command in this connection; the order came straight from Washington. Indeed, the War Department waited until five days before the bombing of Hiroshima even to notify MacArthur – the commanding general of the U.S. Army Forces in the Pacific – of the existence of the atomic bomb."

Alperovitz makes it very clear that the main person Truman was listening to while he ignored all of this civilian and military advice, was James Byrnes, the man who virtually controlled Truman at the beginning of his administration. Brynes was one of the most experienced political figures in Washington, having served for over thirty years in both the House and the Senate. He had also served as a United States Supreme Court Judge, and at the request of President Roosevelt, he resigned that position and accepted the role in the Roosevelt administration of managing the domestic economy. Byrnes went to the Yalta Conference with Roosevelt and then was given the responsibility to get Congress and the American people to accept the agreements made at Yalta.

When Truman became a senator in 1935, Brynes immediately became his friend and mentor and remained close to Truman until Truman became president. Truman never forgot this and immediately called on Brynes to be his number-two man in the new administration. Brynes had expected to be named the vice presidential candidate to replace Wallace and had been disappointed when Truman had been named, yet he and Truman remained very close. Byrnes had also been very close to Roosevelt, while Truman was kept in the dark by Roosevelt most of the time he served as vice president. Truman asked Brynes immediately, in April, to become his Secretary of State but they delayed the official appointment until July 3, 1945, so as not to offend the incumbent. Brynes had also accepted a position on the interim committee which had control over the policy regarding the atom bomb, and therefore, in April, 1945 became Truman’s main foreign policy advisor, and especially the advisor on the use of the atomic bomb. It was Brynes who encouraged Truman to postpone the Potsdam Conference and his meeting with Stalin until they could know, at the conference, if the atomic bomb was successfully tested. While at the Potsdam Conference the experiments proved successful and Truman advised Stalin that a new massively destructive weapon was now available to America, which Brynes hoped would make Stalin back off from any excessive demands or activity in the post-war period.

Truman secretly gave the orders on July 25, 1945 that the bombs would be dropped in August while he was to be in route back to America. On July 26, he issued the Potsdam Proclamation, or ultimatum, to Japan to surrender, leaving in place the unconditional surrender policy, thereby causing both Truman and Brynes to believe that the terms would not be accepted by Japan.

The conclusion drawn unmistakably from the evidence presented, is that Brynes is the man who convinced Truman to keep the unconditional surrender policy and not accept Japan’s surrender so that the bombs could actually be dropped thereby demonstrating to the Russians that America had a new forceful leader in place, a "new sheriff in Dodge" who, unlike Roosevelt, was going to be tough with the Russians on foreign policy and that the Russians needed to "back off" during what would become known as the "Cold War." A secondary reason was that Congress would now be told about why they had made the secret appropriation to a Manhattan Project and the huge expenditure would be justified by showing that not only did the bombs work but that they would bring the war to an end, make the Russians back off and enable America to become the most powerful military force in the world.

If the surrender by the Japanese had been accepted between May and the end of July of 1945 and the Emperor had been left in place, as in fact he was after the bombing, this would have kept Russia out of the war. Russia agreed at Yalta to come into the Japanese war three months after Germany surrendered. In fact, Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945 and Russia announced on August 8, (exactly three months thereafter) that it was abandoning its neutrality policy with Japan and entering the war. Russia’s entry into the war for six days allowed them to gain tremendous power and influence in China, Korea, and other key areas of Asia. The Japanese were deathly afraid of Communism and if the Potsdam Proclamation had indicated that America would accept the conditional surrender allowing the Emperor to remain in place and informed the Japanese that Russia would enter the war if they did not surrender, then this would surely have assured a quick Japanese surrender.

The second question that Alperovitz answers in the last half of the book is how and why the Hiroshima myth was created. The story of the myth begins with the person of James B. Conant, the President of Harvard University, who was a prominent scientist, having initially made his mark as a chemist working on poison gas during World War I. During World War II, he was chairman of the National Defense Research Committee from the summer of 1941 until the end of the war and he was one of the central figures overseeing the Manhattan Project. Conant became concerned about his future academic career, as well as his positions in private industry, because various people began to speak out concerning why the bombs were dropped. 

On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publically quoted extensively as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a "toy and they wanted to try it out . . . ." He further stated, "The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it." Albert Einstein, one of the world’s foremost scientists, who was also an important person connected with the development of the atomic bomb, responded and his words were headlined in The New York Times "Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb." The story reported that Einstein stated that "A great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden employment of the atom bomb." In Einstein’s judgment, the dropping of the bomb was a political – diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientific decision.

Probably the person closest to Truman, from the military standpoint, was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Leahy, and there was much talk that he also deplored the use of the bomb and had strongly advised Truman not to use it, but advised rather to revise the unconditional surrender policy so that the Japanese could surrender and keep the Emperor. 

Leahy’s views were later reported by Hanson Baldwin in an interview that Leahy "thought the business of recognizing the continuation of the Emperor was a detail which should have been solved easily." Leahy’s secretary, Dorothy Ringquist, reported that Leahy told her on the day the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, "Dorothy, we will regret this day. The United States will suffer, for war is not to be waged on women and children." Another important naval voice, the commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that "The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war." 

In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war." It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was "It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime." Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to "succumb" to Byrnes.

James Conant came to the conclusion that some important person in the administration must go public to show that the dropping of the bombs was a military necessity, thereby saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, so he approached Harvey Bundy and his son, McGeorge Bundy. It was agreed by them that the most important person to create this myth was Secretary of War, Henry Stimson. It was decided that Stimson would write a long article to be widely circulated in a prominent national magazine. This article was revised repeatedly by McGeorge Bundy and Conant before it was published in Harper’s magazine in February of 1947. The long article became the subject of a front-page article and editorial in The New York Times and in the editorial it was stated "There can be no doubt that the president and Mr. Stimson are right when they mention that the bomb caused the Japanese to surrender." Later, in 1959, President Truman specifically endorsed this conclusion, including the idea that it saved the lives of a million American soldiers. This myth has been renewed annually by the news media and various political leaders ever since.

It is very pertinent that, in the memoirs of Henry Stimson entitled On Active Service in Peace and War, he states, "Unfortunately, I have lived long enough to know that history is often not what actually happened but what is recorded as such."

To bring this matter more into focus from the human tragedy standpoint, I recommend the reading of a book entitled Hiroshima Diary: The Journal of a Japanese Physician, August 6, September 30, 1945, by Michiko Hachiya. He was a survivor of Hiroshima and kept a daily diary about the women, children and old men that he treated on a daily basis in the hospital. The doctor was badly injured himself but recovered enough to help others and his account of the personal tragedies of innocent civilians who were either badly burned or died as a result of the bombing puts the moral issue into a clear perspective for all of us to consider.

Now that we live in the nuclear age and there are enough nuclear weapons spread around the world to destroy civilization, we need to face the fact that America is the only country to have used this awful weapon and that it was unnecessary to have done so. If Americans would come to recognize the truth, rather than the myth, it might cause such a moral revolt that we would take the lead throughout the world in realizing that wars in the future may well become nuclear, and therefore all wars must be avoided at almost any cost. Hopefully, our knowledge of science has not outrun our ability to exercise prudent and humane moral and political judgment to the extent that we are destined for extermination.

John V. Denson [send him mail] is the editor of two books, The Costs of War and Reassessing the Presidency. In the latter work, he has chapters especially relevant for today, on how Lincoln and FDR lied us into war.



-------- u.s. nuc weapons

Nuclear terror: science and lies

Greg Adamson
From Green Left Weekly, August 2, 2006. 

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/677/677p24.htm

On August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on the historic Japanese city of Hiroshima. While this was a military triumph for the United States, for scientists, including Albert Einstein, it was a tragedy.

A new weapon of immense power had been unleashed on the world, aided by scientists under the misconception that Nazi Germany was about to develop a nuclear weapon itself. The weak state of the Nazi program was partly due to a secret pact by key German physicists. Scientists working on the US program, however, were kept uninformed of the actual state of the Nazi program.

In August 1939, in the approach to World War II, Albert Einstein signed a letter to US President Franklin D. Roosevelt stating that through recent work in nuclear physics “it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium ... This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of ... extremely powerful bombs.” The letter stated that “Germany has actually stopped the sale of uranium from the Czechoslovakian mines which she has taken over”, and called for a “watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action on the part of the [US] Administration”.

It was not the threat of Germany at war, but the threat of the German regime having uncontested control of the atomic bomb that caused concern to a number of nuclear physicists, including several refugees from Nazism. The “Einstein letter” was organised by one such physicist, Leo Szilard, and presented to Roosevelt on October 11, 1939. “I really only acted as a letter-box. They brought me a letter all ready for signature and I simply signed it”, Einstein later explained to biographer Antonina Vallentin.

Szilard was afraid of Nazi Germany getting the atomic bomb, but hadn’t been able to convince the US government that the new weapon was practical. In Brighter Than a Thousand Suns, published in 1959, Robert Jungk examines the events surrounding the US nuclear program. He details the actual state of nuclear weapons’ development in Germany at that time and shows that Hitler’s forces were nowhere near developing the atomic bomb.

“Four factors must have combined to frustrate the construction of a German atom-bomb. In the first place the absence of eminent physicists driven into exile by Hitler now proved to be a severe handicap. Secondly, the poor organisation by the National Socialists of research in the interests of war and its inadequate recognition by their Government, and thirdly, the technical difficulties of so complex a project, were further obstacles. But above all, in the fourth place, the actual personal attitudes of the German experts in atomic research who had remained at home counted against success.

“Fortunately they did nothing to facilitate the construction of such a bomb in the face of misunderstanding by the authorities and the insufficient technical resources the latter provided. On the contrary, such physicists were able successfully to divert the minds of the National Socialist Service Departments from the idea of so inhuman a weapon.”

Jungk describes how several groups that could have followed up the possibility of developing nuclear weapons came not to. He states, “there were at that time [at least 13] prominent German physicists who had agreed that they must try to avoid working with Hitler’s war-machine or to make only a pretence of doing so. The names of German physicists unwilling to supply Hitler with supplementary armaments were deposited, after the war had begun, in Sweden — with Professor Westgren — and in Holland — with Professor Burgers. It was considered that an open ‘strike’ of research workers would be dangerous, as it would leave the field open for unscrupulous and ambitious persons.”

Einstein later stated that, “If I had known that the Germans would not succeed in constructing the atom-bomb, I would never have moved a finger”.

By 1941 reports were getting through to the US government that Hitler had no advanced bomb project. These reports, which came from scientists fleeing Europe, were not conveyed to the physicists working on the US bomb project, who believed right up to the final defeat of the Nazi regime that Germany might have been ahead of the US in developing nuclear weapons.

While the scientists were unaware of the weak state of the German nuclear program, the US government knew the reality, including through reports of German scientists’ non-cooperation. The US program was the largest engineering work undertaken to that time, and a strong Nazi program would have had a similar requirement. (While Britain and Canada participated in the US program, they were abruptly excluded at the end of the war.) At Oak Ridge, Tennessee, the longest factory halls in the country were constructed. At Hanford, in Washington State, it took 60,000 workers to build one of the largest chemical works in the country. At Los Alamos, in New Mexico, seven separate divisions worked on the final product. In total, the bomb took 150,000 people to build.

The German regime was defeated before the first nuclear weapon was ready for use. Nevertheless, the US bomb project maintained its frantic activity. The bomb project organiser at the Los Alamos centre, General Leslie Groves, continually urged, “We must not lose a single day”.

The only possible target now was Japan, which could not possibly have been developing nuclear weapons (although supporters of the US nuclear bombing of Japan occasionally claim that there was a Japanese nuclear weapons program). The explanation given for the bomb’s use therefore became the need to reduce US losses in the final invasion.

The use of nuclear weapons was now advocated on the grounds of expediency. For scientists such as Einstein this wasn’t valid, regardless of issues of the war itself. An army at any time can argue for new weapons to defeat its enemy, but once a fundamentally new weapon has been achieved, the threat to the whole of humanity is permanently increased.

The expediency argument could be used today in relation to new technologies, including biological weapons, robotics and nanotechnology. The US could argue that to reduce its own casualties when fighting “terrorist” opponents it should deploy biological weapons (which it hasn’t argued), or develop autonomous killing machines for use in battle conditions (which it has announced plans for within the next decade). Each such step makes the world a more dangerous place.

Szilard, who had earlier organised the letter to Roosevelt, now organised another letter from Einstein to the President, warning of the threat that the nearly completed bombs would pose. Szilard also organised a petition of scientists working on the bomb project opposing its use, which gained 67 signatures before it was banned. Jungk quotes Szilard, explaining the attitude of the scientists he was speaking for at this time: “During 1943 and part of 1944 our greatest worry was the possibility that Germany would perfect an atomic-bomb before the invasion of Europe ... In 1945, when we ceased worrying about what the Germans might do to us, we began to worry about what the Government of the United States might do to other countries.”

The US was in a race against time to drop the bomb before the war ended. From mid-July 1945, the US forces were able to read coded Japanese military information, including expressions of the view that Japan was beaten. At the same time, the US Air Force could bomb just about any target it wanted. Given these and other descriptions of the state of Japan’s defences and the attitude of Japan’s rulers, there was no military reason for the US government to bring into play a devastating new weapon.

The 1945 nuclear attacks on Japan resulted in the deaths of 250,000 people and ongoing damage generations later. The two cities presented different technical challenges: a flat coastal area and a rugged terrain. Two different bomb designs were used; one based on uranium and the other on plutonium. After a list of possible Japanese cities for nuclear bombing had been drawn up, these cities were deliberately spared massive conventional bombing so that the effect of a single atomic blast could be more accurately assessed.

Einstein gave his view of the development of the first nuclear weapon in a December 10, 1945 speech titled: “The war is won, but peace is not”.

“We helped in creating this new weapon in order to prevent the enemies of mankind from achieving it ahead of us, which, given the mentality of the Nazis, would have meant inconceivable destruction and the enslavement of the rest of the world. We delivered this weapon into the hands of the American and the British people as trustees of the whole of mankind, as fighters for peace and liberty. But so far we fail to see any guarantee of peace, we do not see any guarantee of the freedoms that were promised to the nations in the Atlantic Charter. The war is won, but the peace is not ...

“The world was promised freedom from fear, but in fact fear has increased tremendously since the termination of the war. The world was promised freedom from want, but large parts of the world are faced with starvation while others are living in abundance.”

[Greg Adamson is the author of We All Live on Three Mile Island, published by Resistance Books. To order, visit <http://www.resistancebooks.org>.]



-------- u.s. nuc facilities


-------- alabama

Newspaper Endorses SSEB Report on Nuclear Energy

NEI Nuclear Notes
News and commentary on the commercial nuclear energy industry.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2006/08/newspaper-endorses-sseb-report-on.html#links

In the wake of the report on nuclear energy issued by the Southern States Energy Board, the Press-Register says it's time for Alabama to encourage new nuclear build:

    As it moves forward with nuclear power, Alabama will not be alone. Up to 20 new reactors are planned by utilities across the South.

    The Southern States Energy Board report concluded, the ability of electric utilities to develop and promote the use of resources "that do not create harmful emissions will be critical in the decades ahead as countries struggle to meet growing electricity demand while creating more environmentally sustainable energy solutions."

    The board is right. And within that context, nuclear energy remains one of the more viable "environmentally sustainable energy solutions."

To visit the SSEB Web site, click here. http://www.sseb.org/



-------- new hampshire

Lynch objects to proposal for storing nuclear waste at Seabrook

August 2, 2006 Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/08/02/governor_objecting_to_proposal_for_storing_nuclear_waste/

CONCORD, N.H. --Gov. John Lynch sent a letter Wednesday objecting to a proposal that could lead to long-term storage of nuclear waste at the Seabrook Station and Vermont Yankee power plants.

A bill before the U.S. House of Representatives proposes establishing storage sites for used nuclear fuel at up to 31 state locations.

Lynch wrote to U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, who heads the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, saying the proposal is wrong for the health and safety of the citizens of New Hampshire.

He also said state ratepayers, like those in many other states, have paid millions to create one secure national storage site in Nevada and to change course now is a bad move.



-------- new york

N.Y. nuclear plant's sirens malfunction

Updated 8/2/2006 (AP) 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-08-02-nuclear-plant-sirens_x.htm

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — The 156 emergency sirens that are designed to alert nearby residents of an emergency at the Indian Point nuclear power plants were out of service for more than six hours Wednesday because of a computer malfunction, officials said.

The sirens, which have a history of operating problems and are due to be replaced by next year, were out from 12:06 a.m. to 6:35 a.m., said Jim Steets, spokesman for Indian Point owner Entergy Nuclear Northeast.

He said the malfunction was unrelated to heat and power problems currently plaguing the area. He said a computer program that continuously monitors the sirens malfunctioned, making it impossible to activate them.

Had an emergency occurred at Indian Point during the outage, a backup plan involving automatic phone calls, trucks with loudspeakers and radio and TV bulletins would have been implemented to alert residents within 10 miles of the plants.

Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said NRC inspectors would monitor Entergy's investigation of what caused Wednesday's problem.

Steets said Indian Point emergency planning workers were immediately alerted to the problem by a recently added feature that automatically calls them if there's a malfunction. A year ago, the sirens stood useless for nearly six hours when power was lost to a signal transmitter and the failure went undiscovered.

Westchester's emergency services commissioner, Tony Sutton, said he was not notified of the problem until after 4 a.m.

"I would have liked it earlier," he said. "If there had been a radiological emergency, say, before then, I would have gotten a call that said, 'We have a problem and by the way the sirens are out.'"

The NRC has demanded, and Entergy has promised, a state-of-the-art siren system by January.

The siren system also was down for more than three hours in March when it locked up during a test and Entergy took it down to repair it. In addition, regular tests of the system usually result in partial failures.

The nuclear plants are on the Hudson River about 35 miles north of midtown Manhattan. Since the terrorist attacks of 2001, many residents of the lower Hudson Valley have called for the plants to be closed, but federal authorities have found them to be safe and the emergency precautions to be sufficient.



-------- pennsylvania

Nuclear plant cuts power to cool water

Evan Brandt, ebrandt@pottsmerc.com
08/02/2006 Pottstown PA Mercury

http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16995685&BRD=1674&PAG=461&dept_id=18041&rfi=6

LIMERICK -- Not that you needed another example of how hot it is, but it’s so hot that the area’s nuclear power plant had to cut the amount of power it produces.

Not because fewer air conditioners are running full blast, far from it. But to run at 100 percent capacity, which, until Tuesday, Exelon’s Limerick Nuclear Generating Station had been doing, the water used to condense the steam that drives the generators back into water needs to be cool enough to get the job done.

When the mercury reaches 98 degrees, as it did Tuesday at St. Pius X High School, it’s hard to get the water cool enough to perform that vital function.

So, at about 3:30 p.m. Tuesday, unit two at the plant was stepped back by 16 megawatts, just over 1 percent of its full 12,000 megawatt capacity, said Beth Rapczynsky, a spokeswoman for Exelon.

The plant’s massive cooling towers, visible for miles, take water from the Schuylkill River and use it to cool elements that come into contact with the steam used to drive the two giant electric generators at the plant.

Once the steam condenses back into water, it is re-circulated through the reactor, where the nuclear reaction heats it into steam again to drive the generators.

When the cooling water leaves its contact with the heat-exchange element, it is normally about 125 degrees and is air cooled in the towers down to about 95 degrees when it goes back to condense the steam.

But when the air temperature is 95 degrees or hotter, the water in the towers is not cooled sufficiently to cool the steam fast enough to run the generator at peak capacity, Rapczynsky explained.

The reduction is not unusual and has already occurred at many other nuclear plants across the country, particularly in the midwest where the heat wave has been going on for days, she said.

It is happening in Europe as well. Reactors in Spain and France, which generates 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, have all been forced to cut output recently because the river water normally used for coolant is too warm, the New York Times reported.



-------- MILITARY 


-------- israel / palestine 

Israel ready for massive invasion

· Special forces target Hizbullah official as troops plan push in south
· Deadlock at UN and EU

Rory McCarthy in Metula, Ewen MacAskill and Clancy Chassay in Beirut
Wednesday August 2, 2006
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1835303,00.html

Israeli special forces were last night engaged deep within Lebanon as the army geared up for an expected major ground invasion. Troops were involved in fierce clashes and artillery pounded targets across southern Lebanon. The military also called in air strikes despite a previous commitment to a "partial" halt in air bombardments.

Israeli commanders said that six brigades - several thousand soldiers - were now deployed inside Lebanon. At least 15,000 reserve troops, called up late last week, would be ready for combat from today, army sources said.

Last night Israeli commandos were reported to be in action against Hizbullah fighters 40 miles across the Lebanese border in the Beka'a valley, after landing by helicopter. Witnesses reported gunfire around a hospital to the west of the town of Baalbek, a Hizbullah stronghold.

According to the Lebanese army, the target of the raid was Sheikh Mohammed Yazbek, a member of the Hizbullah High Council, and representative in Lebanon of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was reported to have been at the hospital earlier in the day.

The operation began with at least five rapid air strikes three hours before the end of Israel's self-imposed two-day pause in air attacks.

Witnesses in Baalbek reported seeing dozens of Israeli helicopters hovering over the town and said the hospital was bombed. Hizbullah's chief spokesman, Hussein Rahal, later said some Israeli commandos had become trapped in the hospital and that fighting - which had already lasted four hours - was continuing. Some of the soldiers injured in the raid were flown back to Haifa last night.

Mr Rahal dismissed as untrue reports that commandos had snatched patients from the hospital and flown them out of the town, but the operation is reminiscent of Israel's 1994 raid on Lebanon to kidnap a guerrilla leader, Mustafa Dirani.

The military escalation came as diplomats in Brussels and at the UN security council again failed to make progress. EU ministers became bogged down in arguments over the meaning of "ceasefire" and settled for a watered-down compromise calling for a cessation of hostilities. Germany and four other countries joined Britain in opposing tougher language urged by France, calling for an immediate ceasefire and condemning Israel's bombardment as "a severe breach of international humanitarian law".

In a speech in Los Angeles, Tony Blair called for a fundamental reappraisal of British and US foreign policy, admitting excessive emphasis on military power and a failure to address the Palestinian issue had left the west losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Middle East.

The prime minister also sent a warning to Syria and Iran: "We need to make clear to Syria and Iran that there is a choice: come into the international community and play by the same rules as the rest of us; or be confronted."

The Syrian government told its armed forces to raise their state of readiness, after Israel said it would target all vehicles believed to be carrying weapons from Syria to Lebanon.

There was intense fighting yesterday in the Lebanese village of Aitar al-Shaab, where Israeli paratroopers have been for two days; Hizbullah claimed it had killed or injured more than 30 Israeli soldiers there. Israel said three soldiers had been killed after Hizbullah fighters opened fire with anti-tank weapons on houses they were searching.

Yesterday afternoon, a few miles to the east, artillery rounds were seen fired into the village of Taibe, on the saddle of a hill range near where the strategic Litani river runs closest to the Israeli border. Thick brown smoke hung low over the village as buildings were pounded.

Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, under pressure to come out of the conflict with a convincing victory, claimed his troops were winning. He added that a process towards a ceasefire was under way, but an immediate cessation was not in Israel's interests. "We are at the beginning of a political process that, in the end, will bring a ceasefire under entirely different conditions than before," he said. But there would be no end until "we know for certain that conditions in the field have changed from those that would cause a war to break out". Haim Ramon, the Israeli justice minister, said Hizbullah was at "breaking point".

Military officials said the objective was to clear a strip of all Hizbullah positions up to 7km (4 miles) deep inside Lebanon. Military analysts said the army was likely to push further to the Litani itself, which at times runs as far as 20 or 30km inside Lebanon. Several Israeli ministers said there was up to 14 days of fighting to come.

Late last night at one position, 30 or 40 infantry gathered before heading north to fight. In full camouflage, faces painted green and black, and with night-vision goggles, their commander briefed them. "Keep your eyes open. Keep concentrating. Watch out for friendly fire. If you get into trouble, we have a medic in the unit." They said a brief prayer, boarded coaches with loud music playing, and headed out.



-------- mideast

Lebanese Red Cross Repeatedly Targeted

by Dahr Jamail
(Inter Press Service) August 2, 2006

http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=9462

TYRE, Lebanon - Israeli warplanes have attacked the Lebanese Red Cross repeatedly, members of the medical aid group say.

"The night of July 23, we were called to rescue a family whose home was bombed," Kassem Shaulan, a 28-year-old medic with the Lebanese Red Cross in Tyre told IPS. "Just as I finished loading the three injured people in my ambulance, it was struck by a rocket and all of us were injured."

The ambulance, now parked outside of the Red Cross headquarters in this coastal city, had a hole through the center of the red cross painted on its roof. The inside was heavily damaged and pieces of the metal frame of the van hung limply, riddled with shrapnel holes.

The Red Cross worker had several wounds on his body and stitches on his chin and leg. He said he could not hear very well any more.

"There was an old man on a stretcher in the ambulance who lost his leg from the bomb," Shaulan said. "And a child with us is now in coma. The third person is critically injured."

Shaulan, who has worked with the Red Cross for 13 years, is also training manager at the headquarters. He said that minutes after his ambulance was bombed, another ambulance nearby that was collecting injured people was also bombed.

Nobody seems to feel safe anywhere any more. During the brief letup in air strikes after Israel's disastrous strike on a shelter in Qana that killed at least 60 civilians – more than half of them children – villagers are fleeing their homes in southern Lebanon by the tens of thousands.

The United Nations World Food Program and other relief agencies have been working tirelessly to take advantage of the short window to ferry truckloads of aid to stranded civilians.

The brief halt also revealed more death and destruction. Members of the Lebanese Red Cross in Tyre told IPS that their rescue workers retrieved more than 30 bodies from destroyed homes, streets, cars, gardens, and ditches as they began their search. They continued to receive calls about the dead and injured from villages throughout the south.

Shaulan said his headquarters had received calls from Qana pleading for rescue assistance at 5 a.m. on the morning of the Israeli strike. The shelter was bombed at 1 a.m.

"Immediately after we got the call, we took three ambulances and headed to Qana," he said. "But three bombs nearly hit our first ambulance, so we turned back."

They attempted to head out to Qana a second time, but again their ambulances were attacked, and they returned to base. "They were keeping us away," Shaulan said. They succeeded a third time, just before 9 a.m.

"You can see here that everyone the Israelis are attacking are civilians and the Red Cross," Shaulan said. "And now we are having trouble reaching villages to collect bodies because they've bombed most of the roads and bridges before they told people to leave their homes."

Mohammad Zatar, who has been working for the Lebanese Red Cross in Tyre since 1993, said he had never before seen attacks on rescue workers.

"As a Red Cross volunteer, I need to be very clear that we are not political – we rescue anyone who needs help," the 32-year-old Zatar told IPS. As a colleague unloaded bodies from bloody stretchers, Zatar said "whether they are civilian, a resistance fighter or an Israeli soldier, our policy is to help any human who needs help. But the Israelis seem to be attacking us now."

Zatar said that most of the bodies they were picking up were of women and children. "Sometimes we pick younger or middle-aged men, but that is uncommon."

Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz told the Israeli Parliament Monday that Israel plans to "expand and strengthen" its attack against Hezbollah. "It's forbidden to agree to an immediate cease-fire," he said.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said there would be no cease-fire, and that Israeli forces will continue fighting from the air and sea and on the ground in Lebanon.



-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE


-------- courts / tribunals

Bush seeks expanded military tribunal role

The White House is seeking legislation that would allow people not affiliated with terrorism to be prosecuted in military commissions -- with far fewer rights than afforded civilians.

Washington Post Service,  Wed, Aug. 02, 2006

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/15176692.htm

WASHINGTON - A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the reach and authority of such ''commissions'' to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not al Qaeda members or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal plan.

The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, also allows the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court's jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more individuals than previously expected before military juries, officials and independent experts said.

The draft proposed legislation, set to be discussed at two Senate hearings today, is controversial inside and outside the administration because defendants would be denied many protections guaranteed by the civilian and traditional military criminal justice systems.

Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.

Detainees also would not be guaranteed the right to be present at their own trials, if their absence is deemed necessary to protect national security or individuals.

An early draft of the new law prepared by civilian political appointees and leaked to the media last week has been modified in response to criticism from uniformed military lawyers. But the provisions allowing a future expansion of the courts to cover new crimes and more prisoners were retained, according to government officials who are familiar with the deliberations.



-------- POLITICS


-------- investigations

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; A03

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300_pf.html

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration.

A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday that the inspector general's office will soon release a report addressing whether testimony delivered to the commission was "knowingly false." A separate report, delivered secretly to Congress in May 2005, blamed inaccuracies in part on problems with the way the Defense Department kept its records, according to a summary released yesterday.

A spokesman for the Transportation Department's inspector general's office said its investigation is complete and that a final report is being drafted. Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said she could not comment on the inspector general's inquiry.

In an article scheduled to be on newsstands today, Vanity Fair magazine reports aspects of the commission debate -- though it does not mention the possible criminal referrals -- and publishes lengthy excerpts from military audiotapes recorded on Sept. 11. ABC News aired excerpts last night.

For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.

In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.

Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.

These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."

Arnold, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that he did not have all the information unearthed by the panel when he testified earlier. Other military officials also denied any intent to mislead the panel.

John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recent interview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal referral.

"My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me."



-------- ENERGY 


-------- alternative energy

Manure Mountains to Power US Ethanol Plant

Story by Timothy Gardner
REUTERS US: August 2, 2006

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/37477/newsDate/2-Aug-2006/story.htm

NEW YORK - One company's drive to locate domestic sources of energy is taking a turn into the barnyard.

Panda Ethanol Inc. has secured nearly US$160 million in financing to build an ethanol plant that will be fired by mountains of manure in Hereford, a cattle town in the Texas panhandle.

"We've located a project in what I would call the Saudi Arabia of manure," said Todd Carter, the company's chief executive officer.

The plant will gasify 1 billion pounds of manure a year to make 100 million gallons of ethanol. The manure will save the plant nearly 365,000 barrels of oil equivalent per year. Panda hopes to get it running by late next year.

Companies are racing to build ethanol plants as the oil industry uses the fuel as a replacement for gasoline additive MTBE, a suspected carcinogen. Growing US motor fuel demand means ethanol production will need to grow by about 1.5 billion gallons per year.

Some environmentalists have questioned the green benefits of ethanol because some of the fuel's refineries use electricity from plants fired by coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel.

But Carter's "poop to pump" ethanol plant will fuel more than 90 percent of its own energy needs by heating up manure until it releases methane, which it will then burn to make steam to fuel the plant. The process destroys the methane, a greenhouse gas at least 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Some environmentalists worry that runoff from farms that group large numbers of cattle together can pollute water supplies. But Carter said the plant will turn what already exists in the region into something useful. Ash from the process can be used to make cow bedding and cement, he said.

Panda hopes to soon build another plant using the same technology in Kansas. The company expects to become publicly traded by the fall.

When it comes to harvesting manure, timing is important. "It can't be too fresh and it can't be too old," said Carter.



-------- OTHER


-------- environment

Part of Rocky Mountain Arsenal Comes Off Superfund List

DENVER, Colorado, August 2, 2006 (ENS)

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2006/2006-08-02-09.asp#anchor2

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tuesday announced the removal of 11.5 square miles of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal from the Superfund List of the nation's most hazardous waste sites.

This action will enable the U.S. Army to transfer the property, known as the Internal Parcel, to the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, more than doubling its size to 19 square miles.

"Through the hard work of many, the Internal Parcel is ready to become a public asset instead of a polluted liability," said Robert Roberts, EPA's regional administrator. "This deletion makes this land available for future beneficial uses, including open space and wildlife habitat."

Cleanup actions included the excavation and disposal of hazardous soil and materials, including munitions debris and red ash from mustard gas demilitarization.

Cleanup activities also involved the removal or destruction of 196 structures and the closure of 27 groundwater wells that posed a risk for cross-contamination between aquifers.

Some areas within the Internal Parcel boundaries are excluded from today's deletion. Final cleanup of these areas - former processing areas, waste disposal sites, munitions demolition areas, selected structures, haul roads, and drainage areas - is not complete.

In addition, groundwater west of E Street and in a small area east of E Street will remain on the Superfund List and will continue to be addressed by existing water treatment systems.

The deletion of the Internal Parcel from the NPL is the fourth and largest partial deletion at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal to date. In January 2003, EPA and the State of Colorado determined that the Western Tier Parcel, a 940 acre area now being redeveloped by Commerce City into Prairie Gateway, met cleanup requirements.

In January 2004, two additional areas totaling more than 5,000 acres known as the Select Perimeter Area and Surface Deletion Area met cleanup requirements and were deleted from the Superfund List.

To date, nearly 80 percent of the original Rocky Mountain Arsenal site has been deleted from EPA's list of most heavily polluted areas. Cleanup of the remaining property will be completed by 2011.

Located eight miles northeast of downtown Denver in Adams County, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal was established in 1942 by the U.S. Army to manufacture chemicals for industrial, agricultural and military uses. Shell Oil Company manufactured pesticides at the site from 1952 to 1982.

Industrial and waste disposal practices resulted in contamination of structures, soil, surface water and groundwater, and the EPA listed the Rocky Mountain Arsenal on the Superfund List in 1987.